linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5.4 00/94] 5.4.290-rc2 review

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: <cb1e9306-9c05-4a7e-914b-d5127a411ebe@roeck-us.net>
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2025 07:03:33 -0800
From: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
 Pavel Machek <pavel@...x.de>
Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org, patches@...ts.linux.dev,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
 akpm@...ux-foundation.org, shuah@...nel.org, patches@...nelci.org,
 lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org, jonathanh@...dia.com, f.fainelli@...il.com,
 sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com, srw@...dewatkins.net, rwarsow@....de,
 conor@...nel.org, hargar@...rosoft.com, broonie@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.4 00/94] 5.4.290-rc2 review

On 2/1/25 00:01, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
...
> Anyway, are you all really caring about riscv on a 5.4.y kernel?  Last I
> checked, the riscv maintainers said not to even use that kernel for that
> architecture.  Do you all have real boards that care about this kernel
> tree that you are insisting on keeping alive?  Why not move them to a
> newer LTS kernel?
> 

Looking into the 5.4 release candidate, I see:

$ git log --oneline v5.4.289.. arch/riscv/
98d26e0254ff RISC-V: Don't enable all interrupts in trap_init()
574c5efceb70 riscv: prefix IRQ_ macro names with an RV_ namespace
c57ffe372502 riscv: Fix sleeping in invalid context in die()
98c62ee8bc75 riscv: Avoid enabling interrupts in die()
88cb873873ff RISC-V: Avoid dereferening NULL regs in die()
2a83ad25311e riscv: remove unused handle_exception symbol
8652d51931cc riscv: abstract out CSR names for supervisor vs machine mode

Why do you backport riscv patches to 5.4.y if you think they should not be
tested ? Shouldn't your question imply that there won't be any further
backports into 5.4.y for architecture(s) which are no longer supported
in that branch ?

Confused.

Guenter