linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] In-place module initialisation

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: Fri, 29 Mar 2024 15:00:30 +0100
From: Valentin Obst <kernel@...entinobst.de>
To: miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com
Cc: a.hindborg@...sung.com,
	alex.gaynor@...il.com,
	aliceryhl@...gle.com,
	benno.lossin@...ton.me,
	bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com,
	boqun.feng@...il.com,
	gary@...yguo.net,
	kernel@...entinobst.de,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	ojeda@...nel.org,
	rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org,
	walmeida@...rosoft.com,
	wedsonaf@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] In-place module initialisation

> > I think the idea in [1] was to have this patch being included in the
> > stable trees. I got little experience with stable trees but wouldn't the
> > easiest way be that you add:
> >
> >         Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org # 6.8.x: 715dd8950d4e rust: phy: implement `Send` for `Registration`
> >         Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
> >         Fixes: 247b365dc8dc ("rust: add `kernel` crate")
> >
> > in the sign-off section for this patch? (Or mark the first one for stable
> > inclusion as well, [2] has more information on that).
>
> 715dd8950d4e is your local hash for 1/5, right? So I would drop the
> hash, because it may be confusing.

Ah, right, of course this won't be the hash of the commit in mainline;

>
> It may be possible to remove the first line (since 1/5 will only apply
> to 6.8.x and it is already the previous patch in the series, while the

If I interpret the docs correctly, previous patches in the same series are
only implicitly considered as prerequisites for the marked patch if they
are marked themselves:

    "[...] you do not have to list patch1 as prerequisite of patch2
    if you have already marked patch1 for stable inclusion."

So I guess it is important to be explicit.

> `Fixes` tag here may make it clear that 2/5 should still go everywhere
> regardless of 1/5), but I guess it does not hurt to be extra clear.
>
> What about:
>
>     Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org # 6.8.x: rust: phy: implement `Send`
> for `Registration`
>     Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org # 6.1+
>     Fixes: 247b365dc8dc ("rust: add `kernel` crate")

Looks reasonable to me; Also think that the 6.1+ is not striclty necessary
due to the `Fixes` tag though.

    - Best Valentin

>
> Cheers,
> Miguel