linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] x86, fpu/kvm: fix crash with AMX

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: <20260116122246.GBaWotlmNRCkKFA-MU@fat_crate.local>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2026 13:22:46 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org, seanjc@...gle.com,
	x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] x86, fpu/kvm: fix crash with AMX

On Thu, Jan 01, 2026 at 10:05:12AM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Tested on a Sapphire Rapids machine, reviews and acks are welcome so
> that I can submit it to Linus via the KVM tree.

So I wanted to give this a thorough review after yesterday's discussion and
tried to apply the patch but it wouldn't apply. So I took a look at the code
it touches just to find out that the patch is already in Linus' tree!

Why?

Can you folks please explain to me how is this the process we've all agreed
upon?

Where does it say that people should sneak patches behind the maintainers'
backs without even getting an Ack from them?

By that logic, we can just as well sneak KVM patches behind your back and
you're supposed to be fine with it. Right?

Or should we try to adhere to the development rules we all have agreed upon
and work together in a fair and correct way?

I'd probably vote for latter, after we all sit down and agree upon something.

What I don't want is sneaking patches behind our backs and I'm sure you won't
like this either so let's please stop this.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette