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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <8509450b-e223-455e-b44f-03f77705639b@arm.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2026 15:24:16 +0530
From: Dev Jain <dev.jain@....com>
To: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.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 16/01/26 3:18 pm, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> 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.

Alright! Thanks for your kind explanation.

>
> Thanks, Lorenzo