linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/26] Introduce meminspect

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: <dc9a8462-8384-4e9a-94e1-778fc763fa9a@lucifer.local>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2025 17:14:36 +0000
From: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>
To: Eugen Hristev <eugen.hristev@...aro.org>
Cc: linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, tglx@...utronix.de, andersson@...nel.org,
        pmladek@...e.com, rdunlap@...radead.org, corbet@....net,
        david@...hat.com, mhocko@...e.com, tudor.ambarus@...aro.org,
        mukesh.ojha@....qualcomm.com, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org, jonechou@...gle.com,
        rostedt@...dmis.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, tony.luck@...el.com, kees@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/26] Introduce meminspect

On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 07:11:23PM +0200, Eugen Hristev wrote:
>
>
> On 11/19/25 18:30, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > Hi Eugen,
> >
> > You've not run scripts/get_maintainer.pl so this is missing a ton of maintainers
> > that you're required to send this to. This is not a great start for a huge 26
> > patch series that seems to want to make very significant changes.
> >
> > Please try to follow proper kernel procedure.
>
> Hi Lorenzo,
>
> I included the relevant mailing lists, but indeed I have not cc-ed every
> individual maintainer. Do you think it would be appropriate to resend it
> as-is to everyone cc-ed (PATCH RESEND) or just do that for the next
> revision ?

Yeah probably fine to do on respin :)

But obviously let's not land this without at least 1 respin/resend.

Thanks, Lorenzo