From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io; dkim=missing; spf=pass (domain: redhat.com, ip: 209.132.183.28, mailfrom: lersek@redhat.com) Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by groups.io with SMTP; Thu, 04 Jul 2019 09:05:33 -0700 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 072F7307D91E; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 16:05:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lacos-laptop-7.usersys.redhat.com (ovpn-121-43.rdu2.redhat.com [10.10.121.43]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF50E8DC39; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 16:05:13 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH 0/5] MdePkg, SecurityPkg, OvmfPkg: revert unreviewed SM3 patches From: "Laszlo Ersek" To: edk2-devel-groups-io , Imran Desai Cc: Ard Biesheuvel , Chao Zhang , Jian Wang , Jiewen Yao , Jordan Justen , Leif Lindholm , Liming Gao , =?UTF-8?Q?Marc-Andr=c3=a9_Lureau?= , Michael D Kinney , Stefan Berger Reply-To: devel@edk2.groups.io, lersek@redhat.com References: <20190704094624.21057-1-lersek@redhat.com> Message-ID: Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2019 18:05:12 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190704094624.21057-1-lersek@redhat.com> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.13 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.48]); Thu, 04 Jul 2019 16:05:25 +0000 (UTC) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 07/04/19 11:46, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > Repo: https://github.com/lersek/edk2.git > Branch: revert_unreviewed_bz1781 > > The MdePkg patch and the OvmfPkg patch committed for > had not been > reviewed appropriately, so they must be reverted. Due to the MdePkg > patch being the basis of the entire series, the SecurityPkg patches in > the middle have to be reverted as well. (Leif pointed out that at least > some of the SecurityPkg patches were not reviewed *on the list* either, > so there's that too.) I've now pushed this series (commit range 1ec05b81e59f..6a34c1ce7054), with Leif's (as a steward's) R-b, and Phil's R-b. If these patches had been normal patches, obviously I would have waited for package maintainer review. However, these are *not* normal patches; they are reverts which return the tree to an earlier state -- to a state where unreviewed patches had not gone in yet. There's an argument to be made that Jian should have reverted the original patches without me having to post a revert series to the list at all -- either way, this has been urgent because the delta with the unreviewed patches "in" should be as minimal as possible. (Which is why I took it upon me to send the set.) For example, a bisection should preferably not hit the unreviewed range (good point from Leif). Furthermore, if we diverge too much meanwhile, then the reverts themselves could become messy. Imran: please resubmit your patches now. Please pay attention to shallow threading, and to actually working CC's. Regarding the SecurityPkg patches, if you are going to post them unchanged, please preserve the Reviewed-by tags from the SecurityPkg maintainers, but *ONLY IF* those Reviewed-by tags had been given publicly, on the list. (In other words, if they can be found in the mailing list archive.) Thanks Laszlo