linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] x86 PTI and Spectre related fixes and updates

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 14 Feb 2018 17:17:25 -0800
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] x86 PTI and Spectre related fixes and updates

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 4:38 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
>
>    This tree generates two relatively simple conflicts with your tree:

So what annoys me about these conflicts is that I'm not convinced that
the stable tree actually *uses* your fancy x86/pti branch?

I think stable ends up working like a patch-queue anyway due to how
Greg works and all his helper scripts, so the whole "let's keep a
branch for pti" ends up being of dubious advantage when it results in
conflicts on merging, and it's not the same commits in the end anyway.

This is not a complaint so much as a "is it worth it?" question..

              Linus