linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86/crash: Use set_memory_p instead of __set_memory

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <aWcAZbbRQtMn2H2U@Rk>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2026 10:36:52 +0800
From: Coiby Xu <coxu@...hat.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: kexec@...ts.infradead.org, x86@...nel.org, 
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, 
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, 
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, 
	"open list:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86/crash: Use set_memory_p instead of
 __set_memory_prot

On Tue, Jan 13, 2026 at 03:27:33PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>On Tue, Jan 13, 2026 at 06:14:38PM +0800, Coiby Xu wrote:
>> I thought smaller patches are easier to review. But seems it's unnecessary
>> for this case.
>
>Right, especially if the two patches do one logical thing - removing
>__set_memory_prot(). Then one patch is better.

I see, thanks for the explanation!

>
>> Thanks for squashing the two commits and also updating the commit
>> message! I notice you also added a Link tag. Does it mean there is no
>> need for me to re-send your new patch as v2?
>
>Yap, I can queue it, no need.

Great, thanks for taking care of the patch!

>
>Thx.
>
>-- 
>Regards/Gruss,
>    Boris.
>
>https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
>

-- 
Best regards,
Coiby