linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] x86/cpu: Add INTEL_LUNARLAKE_M to X86_BUG

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <877c8jwodu.ffs@tglx>
Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2024 13:58:53 +0100
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, peterz@...radead.org,
 x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
 Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] x86/cpu: Add INTEL_LUNARLAKE_M to X86_BUG_MONITOR

On Thu, Nov 21 2024 at 05:22, Len Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 3:21 PM Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com> wrote:
>> I'm not going to lose sleep over it, but as a policy, I think we should
>> backport CPU fixes to all the stable kernels. I don't feel like I have a
>> good enough handle on what kernels folks run on new systems to make a
>> prediction.
>
> FWIW, I sent a backport of a slightly earlier version of this patch,
> but all I got back was vitriol about violating the kernel Documentation on
> sending to stable.
>
> Maybe a native english speaker could re-write that Documentation,
> so that a native english speaker can understand it?

What's so hard to understand?

 There are three options to submit a change to -stable trees:

  1. Add a'stable tag' to the description of a patch you then submit for mainline
     inclusion.

  2. Ask the stable team to pick up a patch already mainlined.

  3. Submit a patch to the stable team that is equivalent to a change
     already mainlined.

Is very clear and understandable english, no?

#1    is the preferred one and only requires a "stable tag"

#2/#3 can only be done once the fix is upstream as they require the
      upstream commit id.

It's clearly spelled out in the detailed descriptions of the three
options.

Thanks,

        tglx