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: <2025020108-shape-clapped-305c@gregkh>
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2025 16:34:25 +0100
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc: Pavel Machek <pavel@...x.de>, 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 Sat, Feb 01, 2025 at 07:03:33AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> 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

I've dropped them all now, as that is what was causing the build
problems.

> 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 ?

I'm not implying they are not to be tested, it's just a real "is this
something that people actually care about" question.  Last time we had
riscv problems in this branch the riscv maintainers said "don't worry
about it".  I didn't notice that Sasha had queued these up here,
otherwise I would have probably just dropped them then like I did right
now :)

thanks,

greg k-h