linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6] mm/hugetlb: ignore hugepage kernel args if hugepages are unsupported

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: <20251221104907.032abf56c67f3e50c9c94e31@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2025 10:49:07 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: "David Hildenbrand (Red Hat)" <david@...nel.org>
Cc: "Ritesh Harjani (IBM)" <ritesh.list@...il.com>, Sourabh Jain
 <sourabhjain@...ux.ibm.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Christophe
 Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>, Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
 Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Madhavan Srinivasan <maddy@...ux.ibm.com>,
 Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>, Muchun Song <muchun.song@...ux.dev>,
 Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
 Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
 linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
 linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] mm/hugetlb: ignore hugepage kernel args if hugepages
 are unsupported

On Sun, 21 Dec 2025 10:22:44 +0100 "David Hildenbrand (Red Hat)" <david@...nel.org> wrote:

> > 
> > My main concern was -
> > A fixes tag means it might get auto backported to stable kernels too,
> 
> Not in the MM world -- IIRC. I think there is the agreement, that we 
> decide what should go into stable and what not.
> 
> Andrew can correct me if my memory is wrong.

Yes, -stable maintainers have been asked to only backport patches where
the MM developers asked for that, with cc:stable.  There may be
slipups, but as far as I know this is working.

I don't actually know how they determine which patches need this
special treatment.  Pathname?  Signed-off-by:akpm?

> But we can always jump in and say that something should not go to stable 
> trees.

Yes, please jump in if there are any thoughts about
ordering/priority/timing.  In fact, please jump in if there are any
thoughts at all ;)