Hello Christoph, On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 05:50:52PM +0200, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: > On Wed, 2025-09-17 at 17:12 +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > My gut feeling here is that it's ok to wait until this patch > > flows into the Debian kernel via 6.16.8 without the additional effort > > to > > cherry pick it before (with all up- and downsides involved). > > Well, as I've said it isn't really clear to me how serious this even is > (in 6.16) or not. The commit message merely sounded pretty scary with > "serious breakage" and even more so the "This is super-urgent, so I'm > going to fast-track it."[0]. My interpretation is that 2640e819474f (i.e. a commit not present in the Debian kernels yet) is needed to make this problem considerably more likely to occur. So I'd expect that yes 6.16 has a problem, but it doesn't trigger often. > So I thought I heads up might not harm, in order to prevent that maybe > some peoples filesystem superblocks get corrupted by chance, if some > corrupted memory image is loaded back on resume. > > Let's just hope the do .8 fast and it ends up just as fast in sid. :-) > Meanwhile I've simply stopped using hibernation, but this won't of > course help anyone else. Applying a commit fast to the Debian kernel also has the downside to skip over a maturation process. While I would consider Rafael's judgement a strong hint and the patch simple enough to consider the change safe enough, there is a good reason the Greg Kroah-Hartman sends out the patches he queued for the upcoming stable release to the mailing list. There is an armada of people and bots that review and do build and runtime tests that is very valuable. Best regards Uwe
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature