linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] x86/mm: Check if PTRS_PER

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: <d2a1dc6e-640f-45b2-972e-b168ceb577dc@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2025 10:37:50 -0800
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
 Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
 Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org,
 "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] x86/mm: Check if PTRS_PER_PMD is defined before
 use

On 2/24/25 10:11, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> From reading the "Closes:" link, it appears this is a new issue that
>> originates from a new compile flag. So it doesn't seem like it's worth
>> backporting.
> FWIW, I haven't put any Fixes tag nor Cc: stable@ 🙂
> Also note this looks like both compilers complain about the same.

Yeah, I did note that.

I see a lot of patches where folks simply forget about stable and Fixes.
Unfortunately, I'm not super clairvoyant and when I see an ambiguous
changelog without stable and Fixes, I can't tell if it was an oversight
or intentional.

It would be great if contributors could be less ambiguous and save us
the trouble of having to ask!