linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] x86/apic for v6.18-rc1

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-=wibOJBAp66CPz0qfSWe93iisGvN4xL_MzuwSZ8sAut09A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 13:50:48 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: x86-ml <x86@...nel.org>, lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] x86/apic for v6.18-rc1

On Fri, 26 Sept 2025 at 03:28, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
>
> this branch contains two big features because it was deemed a better idea
> to merge them into one.

Ugh. I really wish that hadn't been done. I would much rather have
seen separate SEV and apic branches.

And I don't see the _point_. Yes, I see a conflict resolution. An
absolutely trivial one. So mixing up the SEV branch and the APIC side
seems to have had no actual reason or much commonality.

Oh well. I've taken this, but it really just seems ugly and pointless.

If there was a real *reason* for merging those branches, it sure as
hell isn't explained in said merge. That just has the "fix conflict"
explanation, and as mentioned that seems a really really bad reason.

          Linus