From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1ACCB492E54 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 2026 01:32:17 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=18.9.28.11 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1788917539; cv=none; b=rou1Ts1aY1WDJiugvaaLPKpkdPMCMjkk/p3N+tPr1/3cxSZKO9NRAuU2dtXH4yRY+6Sfge7UVohJdtAvvEKOe9ZD7FaV5RfDapq1VW/PY4ywnJdoNQ4XhA4pwcyr9FGQX3iqUky5HTFnt3VlrsGTMxh4kqllHtHd8etAwaD50L8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1788917539; c=relaxed/simple; bh=/JuQ1uWmzswZgmkh08XwQAnTGqnmsd07csBUYydRdR4=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=kosoNSX0Eo/6RZsXgC30u0s3gmaLqNcHv7Dv4Tf9DA+wCaIV6Sc94ksBaZJXP9F1tgNrW5lh+N/Jt/7CzAAcoFiEDoOjWttW/WGABEIOro27ZVN4Sw3ECcihqoKRKwqNiNOgsbl/GqjKah1DHMe21iOuufmBJzQvWgntXzNA0BA= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=mit.edu; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mit.edu; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mit.edu header.i=@mit.edu header.b=HR13ShRY; arc=none smtp.client-ip=18.9.28.11 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=mit.edu Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mit.edu Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mit.edu header.i=@mit.edu header.b="HR13ShRY" Received: from macsyma.thunk.org (pool-108-26-156-127.bstnma.fios.verizon.net [108.26.156.127]) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as tytso@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 6891W99a001768 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 8 Sep 2026 21:32:10 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mit.edu; s=outgoing; t=1788917532; bh=e6N/DDVII1jufi3zLBpWppyUDcVSuLrSrwHNMH7HAjg=; h=Date:From:Subject:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=HR13ShRYBNcy5F/2s6iYFdl4x/8un5n6U0fpqlxirIZxmCINexuuoqoi6vLmJpcFC vfeqoAvZnhllgSfsG8vcJGGx8/0+GNr1QPnam0JU5m5SzJoVwfwqt0hmg1Rdr5YSj0 P42FXIEwmkf99nFOy3p4Y9P5xbTFzj+AXB5Q6ch6IgLNgpil89XJbrJlDwGLx8G07q VTeoEC9F1T4+9AAWoZoRLu7CBgfzIJqBeD8v2lZmwnk/TLsGNNcgYgfTao9VR+0v1h BI3oSppclXUXE3z2ZmSagXTu3CI1FYXAjXpvgT4/C7gzjFf+YE6Dbe4+BduKYX7tl0 JqfLZAu86riLA== Received: by macsyma.thunk.org (Postfix, from userid 15806) id CBB8613F06AE; Tue, 8 Sep 2026 21:31:08 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2026 21:31:08 -0400 From: "Theodore Tso" To: Steven Rostedt Cc: "igor.stoppa@gmail.com" , James Bottomley , Greg KH , ksummit@lists.linux.dev, istoppa@nvidia.com Subject: Re: [TECH TOPIC] Improving kernel security & integrity by generalizing ad-hoc safety mechanisms Message-ID: References: <2026090747-carless-trio-ae92@gregkh> <2026090810-yen-tablet-8843@gregkh> <132d2a682ce15be4d4f1d8586596dd874195c8c8.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <20260908114024.6165c1db@gandalf.local.home> <20260908133545.05cbbd74@gandalf.local.home> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: ksummit@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20260908133545.05cbbd74@gandalf.local.home> On Tue, Sep 08, 2026 at 01:35:45PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > Just don't Cc the maintainers of the code you modify, as they may think > it's for inclusion. Cc'ing LKML is one thing, as the only ones that read it > are those that are curious about what is happening around the kernel. If it > has some marking in the subject that denotes the patch is for a fork of the > kernel (that you would be happy to be included one day) it should be fine. The one exception I'd make to Steven's good advice is if you have a pre-established working relationship with the maintainer, and the subject is prefixed with something like [RFC PATCH] or [PATCH SAFETY], you can ask them to give their opinion of their approach in your patch set. (Especially if this is a feature that you are asking if this is something which in their opinion might be ripe for inclusion in the subsystem in the upstream feature.) - Ted