linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/bugs: Adjust SRSO mitigation to new features

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: <20241106162525.GHZyuYdWswAoGAUEUM@fat_crate.local>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2024 17:25:25 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@...nel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
	Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
	Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>,
	kvm@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/bugs: Adjust SRSO mitigation to new features

On Wed, Nov 06, 2024 at 08:17:38AM -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> I do subscribe to kvm@, but it's a mailing list, not at alias like x86@.  AFAIK,
> x86@ is unique in that regard.  In other words, I don't see a need to document
> the kvm@ behavior, because that's the behavior for every L: entry in MAINTAINERS
> except the few "L:	x86@...nel.org" cases.

I have had maintainers in the past not like to be CCed directly as long as the
corresponding mailing list is CCed. You guys want to be CCed. I will try to
remember that. We have different trees, with different requirements, wishes,
idiosyncrasies and so on. And you know that very well.

So document it or not - your call.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette