On 29.01.2021 11:04, Andrew Cooper wrote: > On 29/01/2021 10:01, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 29.01.2021 10:47, Andrew Cooper wrote: >>> On 29/01/2021 09:40, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 29.01.2021 10:32, Andrew Cooper wrote: >>>>> What's the likelihood that you'll choose to backport this? >>>> Didn't consider this aspect yet. I think I wouldn't have picked >>>> it without anyone asking for it to be backported. >>>> >>>>> I can extend it if needs be. >>>> Well, if that deletion of code gets committed in time, then of >>>> course there's no real need to fiddle with it here. >>> This specific patch fixes a real bug on arm32 which will cause unsigned >>> long + unsigned int to truncate together and permit certain values. >> Why Arm32 only? Looking at current staging, there's no overflow >> check at all on the grant part of the path. A suitably large >> 64-bit "frame" will allow the same behavior on 64-bit (wrapping >> around through zero), afaict. > > Very good point. I'd worked the logic through logically at the end of > my fixes, rather than at its position in the beginning of the series. > > In which case I'll propagate through the whole call-tree.
Thanks. And then, as said, Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> And I guess I'll try to remember to pick this up for backporting once it has landed. Jan
