From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from NAM11-CO1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (NAM11-CO1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.92.18.92]) by mx.groups.io with SMTP id smtpd.web11.18611.1607106496724025960 for ; Fri, 04 Dec 2020 10:28:16 -0800 Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io; dkim=fail reason="body hash did not verify" header.i=@outlook.com header.s=selector1 header.b=Ee5fSp4o; spf=pass (domain: outlook.com, ip: 40.92.18.92, mailfrom: spbrogan@outlook.com) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=Ujqd24xTdpI1qqJ7zVi2EXxLmoZGaZK6Cwt2aTDRUZg7gOblStojz9FCBlYZcyEEFKvBRoXaXgS3IxJhmIwuxqDepUkiTu/D2nWxDIPseURx1qWeRRNrpNs9NGkoP69vcoS5+tdzxIFnI5qtXdPY7ylHo8X2MStYdRVwlK9MjVgVXG7nfH6zJV8dxhI3WV7HjTEZJw2mSD3Dk0beR/V9iCyeEgY/SaYp/I6e32/J7sP8i/vZKcUlr3duB9kLkF5w6fpW2gXmh612vvMn4vZ21ZUge2F40IsPvpIqd8Rbzh3cbTF1hlBEpws0SRS+hT/BSq2V873utZ7cyjIbo8dXlw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=CWmx0KMTeZv6mvISMoDLrK6dMH5PlqAzLqfekC+e27I=; b=kuHxJkKwxBY7ZJnGKPQm6uqHll8rXQqlUDTOJhFGeU/LRFAq2eu4WbZx0jzFaQhm+lFuok+POJ7IfMMYCvmfPCGP+omS+0o4dpRx+70lhpDz2nkiwTfdDUnBs4hC7SCc89iPzEV9JTg2ukT8V28uY+JI/GxEWTjUGYIH49Uf830KlIQgqfQ8BoQ98hw1xb4b6JBJYy4nxe4K11Ng1saEEmd8RYpQ8rHD2RzKPxcafvvyAwz+cPrJQDKodRHb9Wz1XnZIW6eawFA179JnZLE2y2YnCs0IwOIGCZHZQkR59Tlqmt+Y+WTt2CNkz/afSgRQzDe4MkfKsIBLAXphzqS9/A== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=none; dmarc=none; dkim=none; arc=none DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=outlook.com; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=CWmx0KMTeZv6mvISMoDLrK6dMH5PlqAzLqfekC+e27I=; b=Ee5fSp4oTImbxFmTeQFDZnrcBzIMuu4QrvvFtIeLUlFONjW/I6knQA1nAwHx+W997jNzxPAKvuTEZFSB1EpVVh+pDHIjDMEK6QOOqC1lc9dREt4ltxFBVHml+7GrMxoTnYrh7hi4oV6pd/tL4zg8IMPxrAZnw1ayp7y38RlMNjNi2d9JO/4Ii/OEV/OqU2flh83eI0HM+QmrawqMvX/m6crscJT6Zc7KMwqImLXqSFAsHBV6i9C72Dx3YKY/6kLwsNAUpGh5nHQ0+VFGNIFKssfHZMSC5SbTTQwsqOY8VdoTJuHpqKEzgoVjfcVVETL0QLA4eweFGjMCJxDiQZrpLw== Received: from DM6NAM11FT015.eop-nam11.prod.protection.outlook.com (2a01:111:e400:fc4d::40) by DM6NAM11HT145.eop-nam11.prod.protection.outlook.com (2a01:111:e400:fc4d::266) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3632.17; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 18:28:15 +0000 Received: from DM6PR07MB7180.namprd07.prod.outlook.com (2a01:111:e400:fc4d::4d) by DM6NAM11FT015.mail.protection.outlook.com (2a01:111:e400:fc4d::133) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3632.17 via Frontend Transport; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 18:28:15 +0000 X-IncomingTopHeaderMarker: OriginalChecksum:0958C307BBA3294FF5C2E68617498D7F72414462AC7E420E7DD11EAE5429134F;UpperCasedChecksum:76BBDE355EA14DACFD4FF8E87D512A6C86BC201BC64F26BB75343C51A94739B4;SizeAsReceived:9176;Count:48 Received: from DM6PR07MB7180.namprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::9d01:5510:6bd1:2de0]) by DM6PR07MB7180.namprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::9d01:5510:6bd1:2de0%9]) with mapi id 15.20.3632.020; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 18:28:15 +0000 Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH 1/2] OvmfPkg: start using the ECC plugin exception list To: Laszlo Ersek , devel@edk2.groups.io, Ard Biesheuvel CC: James Bottomley , Jordan Justen , =?UTF-8?Q?Philippe_Mathieu-Daud=c3=a9?= , Tom Lendacky , "Leif Lindholm (Nuvia address)" References: <20201204032116.31321-1-lersek@redhat.com> <20201204032116.31321-2-lersek@redhat.com> <7c57b6dc-de1a-8f2b-9b40-c1faf9b46bfe@redhat.com> From: "Sean" Message-ID: Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2020 10:28:13 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.5.1 In-Reply-To: <7c57b6dc-de1a-8f2b-9b40-c1faf9b46bfe@redhat.com> X-TMN: [/3KcZWBDNnktoIOxesX2aQN1nf3+YDpD] X-ClientProxiedBy: MWHPR13CA0003.namprd13.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:300:16::13) To DM6PR07MB7180.namprd07.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:5:1e1::15) Return-Path: spbrogan@outlook.com X-Microsoft-Original-Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MS-Exchange-MessageSentRepresentingType: 1 Received: from [192.168.2.78] (50.47.113.221) by MWHPR13CA0003.namprd13.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:300:16::13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3654.7 via Frontend Transport; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 18:28:14 +0000 X-MS-PublicTrafficType: Email X-IncomingHeaderCount: 48 X-EOPAttributedMessage: 0 X-MS-Office365-Filtering-Correlation-Id: 8ba61d75-1e18-40f0-8a89-08d898825d74 X-MS-TrafficTypeDiagnostic: DM6NAM11HT145: X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0; X-Microsoft-Antispam-Message-Info: FujsRoaKEtBpsu+9VMepDiK93PHw1PpJRdAigW2VJkqlRKQ8ataBxoUJMC4xlbH821X8k+WFGoAzTZDmeWT8Z3MX9lMZOK9x4cJMTBXygh4kdUGc76vvpYqicef4KdZa0VeRe04f5Kold9c/1bqy19oXFgrQ85knKj544TxB5zEj3BX8R3a6i5i9BXOHPvEIIOow6DLCBzhuQ6yekgUMmg== X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData: 4bYEWNq7ez5HX22fVF36HYSAqh9qHgU7WE7QGpP17hDRjQEmhISdgtjFQaTKwAfryuE5AcTu1E3z5Jb5TktJP3s8n2UnrD6vvIadObzpR3lNNmuUXvBjryPe8xwSwI9eim4kLs/+Xn2Ua86l4QWUCw== X-OriginatorOrg: outlook.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 8ba61d75-1e18-40f0-8a89-08d898825d74 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Dec 2020 18:28:15.7210 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 84df9e7f-e9f6-40af-b435-aaaaaaaaaaaa X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: DM6NAM11FT015.eop-nam11.prod.protection.outlook.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Anonymous X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Internet X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-RMS-PersistedConsumerOrg: 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000 X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM6NAM11HT145 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I would also agree with Ard about shortening and simplifying the commit=20 message if this commit is to go forward. As a FYI the pytools issue you link to for ci comment is closed as "wont=20 fix". That doesn't change the fact that Edk2 CI runs an edk2 plugin=20 that does potentially bad things to your local workspace and if your=20 environment is configured in unexpected ways the plugin causes even more=20 damage. More importantly instead of this commit i ask if the community should=20 have a quick value prop discussion of EccCheck and if in its current=20 form needs changes or to be disabled...then that would be the change=20 rather than this commit. I am generally a fan of automation and tools=20 based validation for code formatting but there has been a lot of noise=20 with this one so it might not yet be ready to be a PR blocker. Personally, related to code formatting/conventions i would much much=20 rather see the community agree to a profile in clang-format or something=20 similar and then just run the tool on all files in the tree and commit=20 the changes. This might mean we have to change a few things as i=20 haven't been able to get clang-format to match exactly...but in the end=20 auto formatting is in my opinion a better path forward than home grown=20 tools to "enforce" formatting. Auto formatting could be easily enforced=20 in CI and is easy/nearly free for a contributor to resolve and help the=20 community create consistent code. I know its not perfect but it gets=20 you 95% of the way without huge investment. Thanks Sean On 12/4/2020 7:36 AM, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > Hi Sean, >=20 > On 12/04/20 16:22, Laszlo Ersek wrote: >> On 12/04/20 05:05, Sean Brogan wrote: >=20 >>> 3. Running CI locally should not be "somewhat risky".=C2=A0 More work n= eeds >>> to be done to identify the root cause of the above behavior but my gues= s >>> is that it has to do with EccCheck and nothing to do with >>> pytool-extensions. >> >> Sorry, I guess I mixed up my references a little bit. I consider running >> binaries downloaded from the internet risky (except from the official >> repos of my Linux distro(s)). But that's indeed a different topic and I >> shouldn't have generalized. Sorry about that. >=20 > If you have a suggestion to improve the wording here, I'd like to hear > that. I'd really like to go ahead with this patch set in one way or > another, as it's blocking James's work from being merged. I don't want > to merge a commit message here that you find offensive or just plain > wrong though, so please suggest an improvement. >=20 > Ard, do you have any comments please? >=20 > Thanks > Laszlo >=20