linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] x86 fixes

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: <aT5smUxrbh3xY4zy@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2025 08:51:53 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] x86 fixes


* Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:

> On Sat, Dec 13, 2025 at 11:00:11AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > Yeah, but that's not really how we apply -stable tags. If it's good for
> > -stable, it's good for Linus's tree, full stop.
>
> Full stop, schmulstop... I'm not going to send a not as much as possibly
> tested fix to Linus for something which was a nasty pain to get right
> a couple of times because of a bunch of SNAFUs by BIOS and Qemu and
> whatnot, just to break other machines and then hurry and scramble to fix
> it again.

It's Linus's preference: a couple of years ago, when I did something
similar to what you did here Linus requested that fixes with -stable
tags not live in -next indefinitely, but be sent to his tree.
-next should not be a dumping ground for long-term testing.

> Rather, I'd let it cook for a whole cycle so that we're sure.

If a fix is important enough to get a -stable tag, it should go
upstream sooner rather than later.

Thanks,

	Ingo