linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 0/7] SRAT/CEDT fixes and updates

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 Apr 2024 10:46:44 -0700
From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To: Robert Richter <rrichter@....com>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
CC: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, Dan Williams
	<dan.j.williams@...el.com>, Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@...el.com>,
	<linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org>, Robert Richter <rrichter@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/7] SRAT/CEDT fixes and updates

Robert Richter wrote:
> Some fixes and updates for SRAT/CEDT parsing code. Patches can be
> applied individually and are independent.
> 
> First patch fixes a page fault during boot. It should be marked
> stable.
> 
> 2nd patch reworks the code around numa_fill_memblks() (Dan's
> suggestion).

Just squash these 2 together. The -stable maintainers continue to assert
that fixes should do the right thing by mainline mainline standards and
let the -stable backport process decide if a different change needs to
be made for older kernels. I see no benefit for tracking 2 changes for
how numa_fill_memblks() is defined.