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: <ZyuZAzqQIXudhbxi@google.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2024 08:27:47 -0800
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
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, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> 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.

LOL, doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose of MAINTAINERS?