From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.linutronix.de (193.142.43.55:993) by crypto-ml.lab.linutronix.de with IMAP4-SSL for ; 27 Apr 2020 19:37:46 -0000 Received: from p5de0bf0b.dip0.t-ipconnect.de ([93.224.191.11] helo=nanos.tec.linutronix.de) by Galois.linutronix.de with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1jT9ZZ-0005vi-C1 for speck@linutronix.de; Mon, 27 Apr 2020 21:37:45 +0200 From: Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Slow Randomizing Boosts DoS v4.4.219 backport 0 In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2020 21:37:43 +0200 Message-ID: <87mu6wpvnc.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: speck@linutronix.de List-ID: Mark, speck for mark gross writes: > From: mark gross > 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: References: From: Jia Zhang 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