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: <aT-0UhUmxGkn8WxP@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2025 08:10:10 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@...il.com>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	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


* Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@...il.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 14, 2025 at 09:31:31AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, Dec 14, 2025 at 08:51:53AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > Well, this is a question for the maintainers summit but that just ended...
> > >
> > > The stable tag is the sure-fire way which the stable team uses to know
> > > that a patch needs to be picked up. If you remove the stable tag, I now
> > > have to pay attention when it goes upstream that I need to send it to
> > > them unless the AI picks it up.
> >
> > Yeah, I agree about that and I've added it back, but note
> > Linus's clearly stated past preference for -stable marked fixes
> > to not linger too long in -next - which in my book trumps any
> > preferences you may or may not have, regardless of how many
> > times you've 'explained' it 'upthread'. ;-)
>
> Hi,
>
> Just FYI that this PR didn't get merged for 6.19-rc1. Any plan to resend
> it for rc2 (considering Boris's objection)?

Yeah, will send it later today.

Thanks,

	Ingo