From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp161.vfemail.net (smtp161.vfemail.net [146.59.185.161]) (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 5BEC33CA4A8 for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2026 13:39:05 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=146.59.185.161 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1786369147; cv=none; b=XazGh4IseBUHGnG3WHtijhtOAAx6UCr+w6Nfck+OieyQM+OkgMq94aHcJYwhzyOwoj9yIYYiMxbsiNOEnNQuRDmsNGYdUxFu/GZlqLXK9tJHcrjTTbJNDgyQrlT85GmxkVn+G4YPQYR8UV5vnNxmaz0rWhyH4GTadLd0/FHwhY0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1786369147; c=relaxed/simple; bh=a+J7tdPKyHsKuAkk1mQ20zUKGmoe3x1TvOV647oemxg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=H07NChZM9y0J0hAI2oRobSnje0ameYgrKft6k0uQSe4KECo2AJ2PS7K8GML3aEz+Uf2KK4qaHqcksvoM6v3i3+RsS76oU3d4ktqDw5RGlJq84m2s/E6ZOimRRSAT4uvvAShmkthfRuwQLKCtdterav9pjNDFRaN4AQFuncS6zjE= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=vfemail.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=vfemail.net; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=vfemail.net header.i=@vfemail.net header.b=ZJsI8j2I; arc=none smtp.client-ip=146.59.185.161 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=vfemail.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=vfemail.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=vfemail.net header.i=@vfemail.net header.b="ZJsI8j2I" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=vfemail.net; h=date:from :to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=2018; bh=a+J7tdPKyHsK uAkk1mQ20zUKGmoe3x1TvOV647oemxg=; b=ZJsI8j2IMmQg2w34yRGluRe/wR2t d97Zr8SW5OA5zWocmTXD2UhB2DY5D0OGS4mTH2xBmrjzmeq9M74naPAkdhXa8XR7 NPBJwgdyq5L1QAdyv+yjY8f7iRe9e1Cj2SnTl5onEWCu/S9vdoR5lII+BcOISPUX A8svY4Q+w/EQTAs= Received: (qmail 21846 invoked by uid 89); 10 Aug 2026 13:32:22 +0000 Received: from vps-dc174dc1.vps.ovh.net (HELO d3d3MjIxLnZmZW1haWwubmV0) (aGdudGt3aXNAdmZlbWFpbC5uZXQ=@MjE3LjE4Mi4yMDYuNjY=) by smtpout.vfemail.net with ESMTPA; 10 Aug 2026 13:32:22 -0000 Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2026 09:32:19 -0400 From: David Niklas To: Dominique Martinet Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, stable@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Linux 6.12.99 Message-ID: <20260810093219.21c847f2@ZenIII-X12> In-Reply-To: References: <2026072931-buddhist-lethargy-769b@gregkh> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 4.3.1 (GTK 3.24.49; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Mon, 10 Aug 2026 12:50:46 +0900 Dominique Martinet wrote: > Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote on Wed, Jul 29, 2026 at 06:17:30PM +0200: > > Lorenzo Stoakes (1): > > mm: refactor mm_access() to not return NULL > > FWIW if anyone else cares and looks for this, this backport was required > due to a NULL deref in 6.12.98 (and likely .97 as well if commit > 4bfe8c481846 ("proc: protect ptrace_may_access() with exec_update_lock > (part 1)") is indeed the culprit, I didn't check): > https://lore.kernel.org/all/2026072933-widow-grouped-f9e4@gregkh/T/#u > > > Greg & Sasha, > this is purely selfish and I'm grateful for all the work you two do > backporting patches, but (for next times) it'd be great if the backport > commit could also point at why it is backported after all this time > (for example add a comment or even just the above link between the > original sign-off and your's) -- it doesn't have to be much, but it took > me a while to find (I was curious because this was an urgent release > without -rc, with a single 2 year old patch branded as refactor not > fixing anything obvious...) > > Ultimately it doesn't change the fact that "all users must upgrade" as > said in the announce, but I need to judge the urgency of the upgrade, so > having a rationale is extremely useful. > If backported commits fix something obvious then there's nothing to add, > but in this case I believe I'm not the only one who'd puzzle over it (if > someone is actually looking...) > > Thanks! Thanks for pointing that out, Dominique. I'll second the motion.