[MODERATED] Re: [PATCH 0/5] Slow Randomizing Boosts DoS v4.4.219 backport 0

On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 07:39:36AM -0700, speck for mark gross wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 09:37:43PM +0200, speck for Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > Mark,
> > 
> > speck for mark gross <[email protected]> writes:
> > > From: mark gross <[email protected]>
> > > Subject: [PATCH 0/5] Slow Ranomizing Boosts DoS linux-4.4.y backport
> > >
> > > This is a backport of the backports done by Thomas for linux-4.14.y to
> > > linux-4.4.y.
> > >
> > > The backport needed a backport of one additional dependency for
> > > cpu_data-x86_mask getting renamed to x86_stepping.
> > >
> > > This was tested by the test engineer who tested the other SRBDS implementations
> > > and it seems to work.
> > >
> > >
> > > Jia Zhang (1):
> > >   x86/cpu: Rename cpu_data.x86_mask to cpu_data.x86_stepping
> > 
> > This one is missing and rightfully so. Maybe you get your mail setup for
> > sending patches right some day in the future.
> Thats strange.  FWIW I did the following:
> 1996  vim mail/0000-cover-letter.patch
> 1997  speckify-gitmail -s "Slow Randomizing Boosts DoS v4.4.219 backport" mail/ spec/
> 1998  ls spec/
> 1999  cd spec/
> 2000  for b in `ls`; do sendmail -t -i -f [email protected] < $b; done
> 2001  history
> 
> see patch that failed to send below
> 
> > This one has in the mail headers:
> > 
> >   In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
> >   References: <[email protected]>
> >   From: Jia Zhang <[email protected]>
> >   Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2018 09:52:10 +0800
> > 
> > While it's correct that the patch is from Jia and was written on Jan. 1
> > 2018, neither the From: nor the Date: header in the mail are correct.
> 
> I cherry-picked it from the linux-4.9.y version.
> 
> > 
> > That's commit b399151cb48db30ad1e0e93dd40d68c6d007b637 upstream. Do we
> > really want to backport that thing to 4.4 or just live with the uglies
> > of x86_cpuinfo::x86_mask ?
> > 
> > TBH, I don't care, but the stable people might have opinions.
> > 
> > FYI, the Date: headers are generally odd when you send patches as they
> > are not reflecting when the mail is sent. They reflect when the patch
> > was written.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> >         tglx
> >
> -------------------
> 
> 
> From 4db1a97738fbbe14af9a8c746ebd11699f903f76 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> Message-Id: <4db1a97738fbbe14af9a8c746ebd11699f903f76.1588001639.git.mgross@linux.intel.com>
> In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
> References: <[email protected]>
> From: Jia Zhang <[email protected]>
> Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2018 09:52:10 +0800
> Subject: [PATCH 1/5] x86/cpu: Rename cpu_data.x86_mask to
>  cpu_data.x86_stepping
> To: [email protected]
> 
> commit b399151cb48db30ad1e0e93dd40d68c6d007b637 upstream.
> 
> x86_mask is a confusing name which is hard to associate with the
> processor's stepping.
> 
> Additionally, correct an indent issue in lib/cpu.c.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jia Zhang <[email protected]>
> [ Updated it to more recent kernels. ]
> Cc: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]
> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
> 
>  Conflicts:
> 	arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
> 	arch/x86/events/intel/lbr.c
> 	arch/x86/events/intel/p6.c
> 	arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c
> 	arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel.c
> 	arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c
> 	arch/x86/kernel/mpparse.c
> 	arch/x86/lib/cpu.c
> 	drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c
> 	drivers/cpufreq/powernow-k7.c

What's that here for?

Can you resend this series in a format I can use?

thanks,

greg k-h