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:   Thu, 20 Sep 2018 09:20:25 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
Cc:     Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Stefan Agner <stefan@...er.ch>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
        Eli Friedman <efriedma@...eaurora.org>,
        Christopher Li <sparse@...isli.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
        Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@...ewreck.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-sparse@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] Compiler Attributes: naked can be shared

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 01:00:41AM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> >> I am going to send a v5 of the entire series without these two
> >> patches, based on -rc4 (or -next, which one do you prefer? I would say
> >> these patches should be applied early in the -next branches, so that
> >> everyone is ready for the change, given it "touches" every translation
> >> unit).
> >
> > That's up to whomever takes these into their tree for linux-next
> > inclusion.  If you are about to break everything, then you might
> > consider changing your patches so they do not do that :)
> >
> 
> Well, the series shouldn't break anything (famous last words :), even
> if everyone includes those headers. So, in theory, they *could* be
> applied anywhere, anytime; but given they are global changes...

It doesn't matter the "order" in which global changes are added to
linux-next.  If you think it does, please work with the linux-next
maintainer to properly place your tree in the correct "location".

thanks,

greg k-h

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ