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: <d24c4f4c-e58e-483d-adeb-9ec1799c80dc@linaro.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2025 19:19:42 +0200
From: Eugen Hristev <eugen.hristev@...aro.org>
To: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>
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 11/19/25 19:14, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> 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.

Definitely. This isn't something that would land without a lot of reviews.
I am sorry again and hope to hear your opinion on it as well.

Thanks,
Eugen

> 
> Thanks, Lorenzo