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

On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 05:22:13PM +0200, speck for Greg KH wrote:
> 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?

Its a habit I got into on my previous job where me and a team where doing a lot
of rebases of an intel vendor kernel to track upstream.  I think its useful
information to see where there where merge or rebase conflicts.  Thats where
screw up's tended to happen and I just got into a habbit of saving the confilct
list.

I'm happy to remove those.

> 
> Can you resend this series in a format I can use?
I will certainly try but, other than the smtp send failure dropping the one
patch and dropping the Conflicts list in the backport is there something else I
need to look out for?  I "backported" the 4.9.y backport of Jia's patch I think
that may be one thing Thomas was calling out.  Is that ok or should I redo that
backport using the original version it first landed in?

--mark