linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4.19 08/57] KVM: x86: Fix split-irqchip vs interrupt injection window request

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:   Tue, 1 Dec 2020 13:07:36 +0100
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>,
        Nikos Tsironis <ntsironis@...ikto.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.19 08/57] KVM: x86: Fix split-irqchip vs interrupt
 injection window request

On 01/12/20 12:13, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> If you look at the section onhttps://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/stable-kernel-rules.html
> that starts with "Additionally, some patches..." it will show that you
> can add "#" comments on the cc: stable line to let me know pre-requsite
> commits if you know them, and want to do that in the future.

Yeah, I guess that one applies even if it was submitted in the same pull 
request.  I have used it in the past but not for patches that were 
submitted in the same pull request, so in this case I should have marked 
patch 2 like this:

Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org # 4.4.x: 123456: kvm: patch 1 in the series
Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org # 4.4.x

instead of marking both patches with just "Cc: stable".  Upstream commit 
fcb3a1ab79904d54499db77017793ccca665eb7e is one case in which Rafael did 
this.

Paolo