linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 3/8] hwmon: (k10temp) Check return value of amd_smn

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: <7a7c2f41-1608-4348-9183-d99aaa51398e@amd.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2024 09:41:51 -0400
From: Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@....com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: yazen.ghannam@....com, Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
 x86@...nel.org, Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@....com>,
 linux-edac@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/8] hwmon: (k10temp) Check return value of
 amd_smn_read()

On 6/5/24 8:20 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 01:26:54PM -0500, Yazen Ghannam wrote:
>> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
> 
> So yeah, I'll drop the CC:stable tagging in all patches unless we're
> talking about a concrete issue. You need to think about the downstream,
> distro folks who need to go through gazillion of patches and wonder
> whether they really need to backport them.
> 
> And I don't think misusing the stable process like that is the right
> way.
>

I agree that patches 1-3 are not stable-worthy on their own. But I think
patch 4 is, and it requires 1-3 to avoid build errors.

Is there a preferred way to highlight this while patches are in review?

Thanks,
Yazen