[v2,00/10] Impveovements for random.h/archrandom.h

This is a resend of a series from Richard Henderson last posted back in
November:

   https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20191106141308.30535-1-rth@twiddle.net/

Back then Borislav said they looked good and asked if he should take
them through the tip tree but things seem to have got lost since then.

Original cover letter:

During patch review for an addition of archrandom.h for arm64, it was
suggeted that the arch_random_get_* functions should be marked __must_check.
Which does sound like a good idea, since the by-reference integer output
may be uninitialized when the boolean result is false.

In addition, it turns out that arch_has_random() and arch_has_random_seed()
are not used, and not easy to support for arm64.  Rather than cobble
something together that would not be testable, remove the interfaces
against some future accidental use.

In addition, I noticed a few other minor inconsistencies between the
different architectures, e.g. powerpc isn't using bool.

Change since v1:
   * Remove arch_has_random, arch_has_random_seed.

Richard Henderson (10):
  x86: Remove arch_has_random, arch_has_random_seed
  powerpc: Remove arch_has_random, arch_has_random_seed
  s390: Remove arch_has_random, arch_has_random_seed
  linux/random.h: Remove arch_has_random, arch_has_random_seed
  linux/random.h: Use false with bool
  linux/random.h: Mark CONFIG_ARCH_RANDOM functions __must_check
  x86: Mark archrandom.h functions __must_check
  powerpc: Use bool in archrandom.h
  powerpc: Mark archrandom.h functions __must_check
  s390x: Mark archrandom.h functions __must_check

 arch/powerpc/include/asm/archrandom.h | 27 +++++++++-----------------
 arch/s390/include/asm/archrandom.h    | 20 ++++---------------
 arch/x86/include/asm/archrandom.h     | 28 ++++++++++++---------------
 include/linux/random.h                | 24 ++++++++---------------
 4 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 66 deletions(-)

On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 02:54:12PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> This is a resend of a series from Richard Henderson last posted back in
> November:
> 
>    https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20191106141308.30535-1-rth@twiddle.net/
> 
> Back then Borislav said they looked good and asked if he should take
> them through the tip tree but things seem to have got lost since then.

Or, alternatively, akpm could take them. In any case, if someone else
ends up doing that, for the x86 bits:

Reviewed-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>

Thx.

On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 04:51:53PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 02:54:12PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> > This is a resend of a series from Richard Henderson last posted back in
> > November:
> > 
> >    https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20191106141308.30535-1-rth@twiddle.net/
> > 
> > Back then Borislav said they looked good and asked if he should take
> > them through the tip tree but things seem to have got lost since then.
> 
> Or, alternatively, akpm could take them. In any case, if someone else
> ends up doing that, for the x86 bits:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>

Or I can take them through the random.git tree, since we have a lot of
changes this cycle going to Linus anyway.  Any objections?

	     	   	    	  	   - Ted

On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 12:05:59PM -0500, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 04:51:53PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 02:54:12PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:

> > > This is a resend of a series from Richard Henderson last posted back in
> > > November:

> > >    https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20191106141308.30535-1-rth@twiddle.net/

> > > Back then Borislav said they looked good and asked if he should take
> > > them through the tip tree but things seem to have got lost since then.

> > Or, alternatively, akpm could take them. In any case, if someone else
> > ends up doing that, for the x86 bits:

> Or I can take them through the random.git tree, since we have a lot of
> changes this cycle going to Linus anyway.  Any objections?

I think the important thing here is that *someone* takes the patches.
We've now got Ted and Borislav both saying they're OK applying the
patches, an additional proposal that Andrew takes the patches, nobody
saying anything negative about applying the patches and yet the patches
are not applied.  The random tree sounds like a sensible enough tree to
take this so if Ted picks them up perhaps that's most sensible?

On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 05:26:27PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> I think the important thing here is that *someone* takes the patches.
> We've now got Ted and Borislav both saying they're OK applying the
> patches, an additional proposal that Andrew takes the patches, nobody
> saying anything negative about applying the patches and yet the patches
> are not applied.  The random tree sounds like a sensible enough tree to
> take this so if Ted picks them up perhaps that's most sensible?

Yes, Ted, pls pick them up so that we're done with this.

Thx.

On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 06:59:01PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 05:26:27PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> > I think the important thing here is that *someone* takes the patches.
> > We've now got Ted and Borislav both saying they're OK applying the
> > patches, an additional proposal that Andrew takes the patches, nobody
> > saying anything negative about applying the patches and yet the patches
> > are not applied.  The random tree sounds like a sensible enough tree to
> > take this so if Ted picks them up perhaps that's most sensible?
> 
> Yes, Ted, pls pick them up so that we're done with this.

I've picked them up and pushed them to the random tree.

     	    	    	       	       - Ted