Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] x86/purgatory: Make sure we fail the build if
 purgatory.ro has missing symbols
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc:     Arvind Sankar <nivedita@alum.mit.edu>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, x86@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20200311214601.18141-1-hdegoede@redhat.com>
 <20200311214601.18141-3-hdegoede@redhat.com>
 <20200312001006.GA170175@rani.riverdale.lan>
 <3d58e77d-41e5-7927-fe84-4c058015e469@redhat.com>
 <20200312114225.GB15619@zn.tnic>
 <899f366e-385d-bafa-9051-4e93dc9ba321@redhat.com>
 <20200312125032.GC15619@zn.tnic>
 <8af51d90-27fa-6d2a-2159-ef0a9089453a@redhat.com>
 <20200312142553.GF15619@zn.tnic>
From:   Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <94c6f903-7dca-503e-aca7-1ee4641bcdac@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 12 Mar 2020 15:38:22 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200312142553.GF15619@zn.tnic>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

On 3/12/20 3:25 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 02:34:30PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:

<snip>

>> No not ok, I'm doing my best to help make things better here and
>> in return I'm getting what feels as a bunch of negativity and that
>> is NOT ok!
> 
> I have no clue what in my replies made you feel that. Please explain.
> How should I have replied so that it doesn't come across negative?

I posted v3 of this patch 5 months ago, then after 0day bot found
an issue after the resend I send a v4 honestly believing that that
was the only issue with it.

0day bot found another issue, so I send out v5, checking what special
options similar code (EFI libstub) uses to make sure I cover all special
cases this time.

So I've send out 2 versions, not 5 not 10, but only 2 versions in
the past 2 days and you start complaining about me rushing this and
not fixing it properly, to me that does not come across positive.

More specifically my intentions / motives on this were well intended
and I too believe in fixing things the proper way. Your reply suggested
that I just want to rush this through, which calls my motives into
question, for which in my mind there was no reason.

If you complain about 2 versions in 2 days, or 5 versions over 5 months
then that feels exaggerated and it certainly does not give me a feeling
that the effort which I'm putting into this is being appreciated.

Anyways we have a plan how to move forward with this now, so lets
focus on that.

>> Now as how to move forward with this, I suggest that:
>>
>> 1) We wait a bit to see if the 0daybot finds any more existing issues
>> which are exposed by my patch
>>
>> 2) Change my patch to check for missing symbols to use the approach
>> which Arvind has suggested
>>
>> 3) Check that "kexec -l <kernel>" + "kexec -e" still work
>>
>> 4) Post v6.
> 
> 5) Wait for 0day bot to chew on it too.
> 
>> Does that work for you ?
> 
> Yes, sounds ok.

Ok, then lets move forward with this.

Regards,

Hans