linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH mm-unstable] mm: Fix uffd-wp bit loss when batching file folio unmapping

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: <15e2a0d8-e8f1-488c-8fce-c0a2a5182086@lucifer.local>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2026 09:48:55 +0000
From: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>
To: Dev Jain <dev.jain@....com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, axelrasmussen@...gle.com, yuanchu@...gle.com,
        weixugc@...gle.com, david@...nel.org, Liam.Howlett@...cle.com,
        vbabka@...e.cz, rppt@...nel.org, surenb@...gle.com, mhocko@...e.com,
        riel@...riel.com, harry.yoo@...cle.com, jannh@...gle.com,
        ryan.roberts@....com, baohua@...nel.org, baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH mm-unstable] mm: Fix uffd-wp bit loss when batching file
 folio unmapping

On Fri, Jan 16, 2026 at 03:10:23PM +0530, Dev Jain wrote:
>
> On 16/01/26 2:09 pm, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> I saw that the last comment on that series was more than a week back, so best
> thought to just do a folded fix on top of it - and I had formed the impression
> (from the conversations on list) that akpm prefers fixes over respins : )
>
> If a respin is preferred here then I am fine by that.
>

Generally we prefer fix-patches, sent in reply to the patch being altered and
sent by the series author.

Sending a patch with a Fixes: tag is never the correct way to fixup a patch
unless they're upstream or unchangeably-bound-for-upstream with a commit hash
that will be the same in Linus's tree.

You can by all means suggest a patch to an author by replying to the broken
patch, but then it's up to them whether to take it. Also then the courteous way
is to raise the issue in that reply and say something like 'it seems that the
below fixes the issue, can you check it?' or something like this.

But the correct course is to the respond to the series in all cases like this.

Thanks, Lorenzo