linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4.9 086/104] arm64: kasan: avoid bad virt_to

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]

Message-ID: <20171009162319.amwh5sioybn6765n@sasha-lappy>
Date:   Mon, 9 Oct 2017 16:23:21 +0000
From:   "Levin, Alexander (Sasha Levin)" <alexander.levin@...izon.com>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
CC:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.9 086/104] arm64: kasan: avoid bad virt_to_pfn()

On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 04:47:46PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
>On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 02:00:53PM +0000, Levin, Alexander (Sasha Levin) wrote:
>
>> In this case, for example, this patch had a "review cycle" of 18 days
>> where 4 different emails regarding this patch were sent out as it was
>> making it's way through review and queues, so we already try to be
>> as "loud" as we can with it.
>
>As someone on the reviewing side what I'm seeing is a bunch of stable
>maintainers sending fairly large patch serieses that look like normal
>stable review things.  That's not very loud.  I usually don't spend that
>much time on stable reviews as up until this started happening anything
>that went in was either something I'd pushed in directly or something
>where I had spent more time on already after someone had sent a "hey, we
>should backport this" mail.  Mails that look like the ones that have
>been sent are just confirming prior review.

Okay, so something like [REVIEW automatic-patch-selection for 4.X]
is sort of what you're suggesting?

-- 

Thanks,
Sasha