netdev - Re: [PATCH 0/9] strict user copy checks on x86

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: <4DDC404D.8030505@zytor.com>
Date:	Tue, 24 May 2011 16:33:33 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
CC:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, Intel Linux Wireless <ilw@...ux.intel.com>,
	linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/9] strict user copy checks on x86_64

On 05/24/2011 02:29 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> 
> It looks like 1, 2, 4, 6, and 7 got picked up. Should I resend the left
> over patches with appropriate acked-bys and tags? Would it be
> appropriate to push this through your tree?
> 

I was first going to think I'd pick up 8 and 9 in tip, but since 9 is
cross-architecture, Andrew's tree might be better.

Acked-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>

	-hpa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html