linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 5/7] mm: kmemleak: use mem_pool

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: <20231018092253.a12815afa7db9049f95fc195@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Wed, 18 Oct 2023 09:22:53 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc:     Liu Shixin <liushixin2@...wei.com>,
        Patrick Wang <patrick.wang.shcn@...il.com>,
        Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/7] mm: kmemleak: use mem_pool_free() to free object

On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 16:57:50 +0100 Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com> wrote:

> > Could you please reorder this patch before the previous one? If you
> > added a Fixes tag, we may want a cc stable as well (as for the other
> > patches with a Fixes tag) and it makes more sense to backport it on its
> > own without the __create_object() split. Otherwise:
> 
> Ah, ignore this. If we want a cc stable, the whole thing needs
> backporting, including the split which is essential for the subsequent
> fix.

Do we want a cc:stable?  That tag wasn't originally included.

If so, all seven patches?

If "not all seven" then can we please have two series, one for the
backport patches, one for next merge window.