linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/8] Backported fixes for 4.4 stable tree

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, 24 Jul 2019 14:06:27 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Ajay Kaher <akaher@...are.com>
Cc:     torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, aarcange@...hat.com,
        hughd@...gle.com, dave.hansen@...el.com, mgorman@...e.de,
        riel@...hat.com, mhocko@...e.cz, jannh@...gle.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...nel.org,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, srivatsab@...are.com,
        srivatsa@...il.mit.edu, amakhalov@...are.com, srinidhir@...are.com,
        bvikas@...are.com, srostedt@...are.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] Backported fixes for 4.4 stable tree

On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 04:38:23PM +0530, Ajay Kaher wrote:
> These patches include few backported fixes for the 4.4 stable
> tree.
> I would appreciate if you could kindly consider including them in the
> next release.

Why are these needed?  From what I remember, the last patch here is only
needed for machines that are "HUGE" and for those, you shouldn't be
using 4.4.y anymore anyway, right?  You just end up saving so much more
speed and energy using a newer kernel, why would you want to waste it
using an older one?

So I need a really good reason why to accept these :)

thanks,

greg k-h