Re: [PATCH net-next v6 2/8] ipc, msg: Account msg_msg allocations with GFP_KERNEL_ACCOUNT again

[Kees Cook <kees@kernel.org>]

On Mon, Oct 12, 2026 at 06:46:48PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka (SUSE) wrote:
> On 10/11/26 00:37, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Fri, 9 Oct 2026 20:14:20 -0700 Kees Cook <kees@kernel.org> wrote:
> > 
> >> Anything with Fixes: will end up in stable, so I just leave off the
> >> stable CC these days.
> > 
> > -stable maintainers have been asked to Not Do That for mm patches. 
> > Other subsystems are doing the same.
> > 
> > I don't know how they determine whether something is an mm patch.  A
> > patch which covers do-do-that and dont-do-that parts of the tree is
> > likely to be mishandled.
> > 
> > So yeah, add that cc:stable to reduce the possibility of mistakes.
> 
> There's also this from the list of pain points at
> https://lwn.net/Articles/1099594/
> 
>     Kroah-Hartman: subsystems that do not add CC: stable@vger.kernel.org
> tags to patches, but which still expect the stable team to pick up the
> important fixes anyway. The stable maintainers are overwhelmed as it is and
> are not doing that.

tl;dr: yup, sorry. I will add CC:stable in the future.

I went to go figure out where I had gotten this misunderstanding.
netdev dropped their special handling in 2021 in commit dbbe7c962c3a
("docs: networking: drop special stable handling"). But I
really thought I had Greg tell me (in person somewhere?) that
"Cc: stable" was redundant, and I think what I misread in current
docs was, "... such tagging is unnecessary if the stable
team can derive the appropriate versions from Fixes: tags." in
https://docs.kernel.org/process/stable-kernel-rules.html#stable-kernel-rules
but that, on closer reading, is about the _versioning_ syntax of the
"Cc: stable" trailer.

-- 
Kees Cook