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

[Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>]

Mark,

speck for mark gross <speck@linutronix.de> writes:
> From: mark gross <mgross@linux.intel.com>
> 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.

This one has in the mail headers:

  In-Reply-To: <cover.1588001639.git.mgross@linux.intel.com>
  References: <cover.1588001639.git.mgross@linux.intel.com>
  From: Jia Zhang <qianyue.zj@alibaba-inc.com>
  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.

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