Nope, his first email in the thread was this:

https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/11/17/423

Where he's quite civil and explains quite clearly why he won't accept the patch, and what should happen for the patch to be accepted. The Kees's reply insisting on the merge is what led to the profanity-laden email, and frankly I understand that (not condone, but understand from a human-reaction point of view) - how many times does one have to iterate his viewpoint to others to make himself heard?

Nope, this is the first email - http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1711.2/01357.html

Entire thread links from start:

1 - http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1711.2/01325.html

2 - http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1711.2/01357.html

3 - http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1711.2/01368.html

4 - http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1711.2/01636.html

5 - http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1711.2/01701.html

Normally I'm not a fan of Linus, but this:

> IT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE when security people set magical new rules, and then make the kernel panic when those new rules are violated.

> That is pure and utter bullshit. We've had more than a quarter century _without_ those rules, you don't then suddenly walz in and say "oh, everbody must do this, and if you haven't, we will kill the kernel".

> The fact that you "introduced the fallback mode" late in that series just shows HOW INCREDIBLY BROKEN the series started out.

This makes perfect sense and outlines a real problem with security patching in general.

Sadly this kind of magical security thinking have many proponents higher up in the Linux stack, and they have the backing/support of GKH. Thus i worry what will happen the day Linus give up the reins.

I honestly don't think Linus will give it up until he's in a box. He lives and breathes the kernel.