Re: [edk2-devel] Patch List for 202002 stable tag

["Laszlo Ersek" <lersek@redhat.com>]

On 03/03/20 09:29, Gao, Liming wrote:
> Hi, Stewards and all:
>   Below three patches status are updated. If you have no other comments, I will create edk2-stable202002 tomorrow and send the announcement. 
> 
> https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/55105 [PATCH 0/2] UefiCpuPkg/Library: Fix bug in MpInitLib (BZ: 2556) 
> [Liming 2020-02-28] The solution is under discussion. The submitter requests this issue to be fixed happen reasonably soon. So, it may not catch this stable tag.
> [Liming 2020-03-03] The solution is finalized. The patch passed reviewed. Now, it can catch this stable tag stable202002. The package maintainer submitted it in edk2 master 4c0f6e349d32cf27a7104ddd3e729d6ebc88ea70. PR: https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/pull/410

(1) Side request: please don't mix up the term "submit" with "push" or
"merge". Submit means submitting for review. "Push" or "merge" means the
patch is part of the git history.

I don't know where this mis-use of the term "submit" comes from. I've
noticed it only recently, on the list, and maybe in a few BZ comments.
It's very confusing.

(2) Actual request: TianoCore#2556 is still in UNCONFIRMED state. Just
about every aspect of that ticket is wrong:

- wrong status (should be resolved|fixed)
- wrong assignee (should be Leo, not Mike)
- the posted patch has not been referenced in a comment (into the list
archive)
- the commit hash of the resultant commit has not been noted in the BZ
(in a comment).
- the underlying issue seems like a regression on AMD platforms, from
the patch that introduced the PlatformId check. The Keywords field
should have "regression" selected, and a comment should explain what
commit exactly introduced the regression (the PlatformId check).

Leo: please fix up those problems in the BZ ticket urgently.

> 
> https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/54992 [Patch 1/1][edk2-stable202002]BaseTools: Fixed a regression issue in Makefile for incremental build (BZ: 2563)
> [Liming 2020-02-28] This patch has passed review. This regression causes the basic incremental build not work with VS nmake tool. The fix is clear. So, it need to catch this stable tag.
> [Liming 2020-03-03] It is regarded as the critical fix. It was submitted in edk2 master at 2be4828af1c92a848af90429a9a0b44544c80553. PR: https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/pull/409

Not submitted, merged.

Otherwise, OK.

> 
> https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/54995 [PATCH v1] ShellPkg: Fix 'ping' command Ip4 receive flow. (BZ: 2032)
> [Liming 2020-02-28] This is the issue in ShellPkg. It may not be critical issue, and defer after this stable tag.
> [Liming 2020-03-03] The submitted advised moving this issue out of CVE scope (and from stable-202002). So, it will defer after this stable tag.

OK.

Maciej: if you really think this BZ (#2032) should not be in the scope
of CVE-2019-14559, then please go to
<https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2032>, and remove "2550"
from the "Blocks" field, after clicking "edit".

Thanks
Laszlo

> 
> Thanks
> Liming
> -----Original Message-----
> From: devel@edk2.groups.io <devel@edk2.groups.io> On Behalf Of Leif Lindholm
> Sent: 2020年2月28日 20:48
> To: Gao, Liming <liming.gao@intel.com>
> Cc: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>; devel@edk2.groups.io; Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>; afish@apple.com; Guptha, Soumya K <soumya.k.guptha@intel.com>; Marvin Häuser <marvin.haeuser@outlook.com>; Gao, Zhichao <zhichao.gao@intel.com>; 'ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org' <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>; Wu, Hao A <hao.a.wu@intel.com>; vit9696 <vit9696@protonmail.com>; gaurav.jain@nxp.com; Ni, Ray <ray.ni@intel.com>; Feng, Bob C <bob.c.feng@intel.com>; maciej.rabeda@linux.intel.com; leo.duran@amd.com
> Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] Patch List for 202002 stable tag
> 
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 04:13:09 +0000, Gao, Liming wrote:
>>>> I agree it needs to catch the stable tag. If it affects only VS 
>>>> builds then I am not going to insist on extending the hard freeze, 
>>>> but I (technically on holiday today/tomorrow) don't have time to 
>>>> dig much deeper into it.
>>>>
>> [Liming] This fix is to restore the original behavior before the 
>> commit 818283de3f6d for !INCLUDE style in Makefile generation. It does 
>> update GNUmakefile and VS makefile generation. Because it just 
>> restores original behavior, its quality risk is low. So, I suggest to catch it in this stable tag on current release planning.
> 
> If it is *just* a revert, then the risk is often low enough to not slip the date. But I think, as you say, this is something that restores original behaviour - but leaving the code different from the original.
> 
>>>> However, I think the process is pretty clear that this *should* 
>>>> extend the hard freeze.
>>
>> [Liming] I am not aware of the process to extend the hard freeze. But, 
>> you think more time is required for the review and test on the critical bug fix. I am OK.
>>
>>>> I will note that from the trail (commitdate of 818283de3f6d until
>>>> BZ2563 was raised) it appears that detecting this bug itself, 
>>>> which went in two days before the soft freeze, took 15 days.
>>
>> [Liming] Yes. It takes 15 days to expose this issue. 
>>
>>> I agree with Liming's analysis on the patches (i.e., what goes in 
>>> and what gets postponed), and I agree with Leif that we should 
>>> extend the hard freeze by at least a couple of days.
>>
>> [Liming] If you both agree to extend the hard freeze, I have no objection. 
>> I request to extend few days instead of few weeks if no other critical issues are reported. 
>> Then, the impact of the community can be reduced. 
>>
>>> This is not unusual. Originally I thought that edk2 freeze and 
>>> release dates were set in stone, but then Mike explained to me that 
>>> that had never been the intent. And other open source projects do 
>>> several pre-releases (rc0, rc1, .... pre-releases with "release 
>>> critical" (rc) bug fixes), before a final release. For example, QEMU 
>>> regularly plans
>>> rc0..rc2 or even rc3, and then *optionally* adds an rc4 if even rc3 
>>> receives significant bugfixes. The idea is that the final release / 
>>> tag should be preceded by a silent / calm period, where we've waited 
>>> a few days and become reasonably convinced that "OK, there's nothing 
>>> else we should obviously fix right now".
>>>
>>> I wouldn't immediately suggest a full week extension, but maybe 
>>> until March 4th (middle of next week)?
>> [Liming] March 4th is one good choice to reserve few days for the different time zone people.
>> If no more feedback, I will send announcement to delay this stable tag on Feb 28th (00:00:00 UTC-8).
> 
> I am OK with March 4th.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> /
>     Leif
> 
> 
>