linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] unwind_deferred: Inclusion for v6.17

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: <CAHk-=whVcUX7k243mgw-d2BSJV-Z3S8DHnwTn11ZweD1y5Y9GA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2025 10:19:08 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>, 
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>, 
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, 
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>, 
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, 
	Indu Bhagat <indu.bhagat@...cle.com>, "Jose E. Marchesi" <jemarch@....org>, 
	Beau Belgrave <beaub@...ux.microsoft.com>, Jens Remus <jremus@...ux.ibm.com>, 
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] unwind_deferred: Inclusion for v6.17

On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 at 07:32, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
>
> Deferred unwind changes for 6.17

I'm not super-happy about merging code with no users, but in this case
the code does look pretty reasonable to me, and the reasons for
merging it like this in order to have the different users not have to
worry about seem sane too.

I think it could have been done with a shared branch, but I guess my
tree will work as a shared branch now.

So I've merged it, and I did a basic test-build both with a forced
fake 'HAVE_UNWIND_USER_FP' and without (well, the "without" case is
technically still building, but I don't expect issues).

I didn't see any objections in the threads leading up to this, but if
somebody really hates it, holler now.

                  Linus