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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <20190801165705.GA29730@kroah.com>
Date:   Thu, 1 Aug 2019 18:57:05 +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 Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 02:06:27PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> 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 :)

It's been a week, so I'm dropping this from my queue now.  Please resend
with this information if you still want these in the tree.

thanks,

greg k-h