From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out01.mta.xmission.com (out01.mta.xmission.com [166.70.13.231]) by mx.groups.io with SMTP id smtpd.web08.382.1605159678076058647 for ; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 21:41:18 -0800 Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io; dkim=pass header.i=@bsdio.com header.s=xmission header.b=sSVQz/G/; spf=none, err=SPF record not found (domain: bsdio.com, ip: 166.70.13.231, mailfrom: rebecca@bsdio.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=simple/simple; d=bsdio.com; s=xmission; h=Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To: MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:From:References:Cc:To:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID :Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To: Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe :List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=npfjMbV9e/tiuF63xQdsDutJj4Kw94q/Fuf2FRaQq9M=; b=sSVQz/G/jG3PgMJB8XqPcfJuLo gFQrO/2UTsFtd1nZN6W4A3BmcdxFK4OLAfISeSle1KG/gpZrhfnNVcjgKsucBhkVodDlQJGoIEi9R 2CjausBsvg0wFh1oNgQhMNcpwj6ED0Oei9I+C0rdUV0Y8cXX98fIgrux5GGJdocFuGYk=; Received: from in01.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.51]) by out01.mta.xmission.com with esmtps (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from ) id 1kd5MB-005Nn6-8I; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 22:41:15 -0700 Received: from mta5.zcs.xmission.com ([166.70.13.69]) by in01.mta.xmission.com with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.87) (envelope-from ) id 1kd5MA-00016q-Ix; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 22:41:15 -0700 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mta5.zcs.xmission.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60CFA1280A82; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 22:41:14 -0700 (MST) X-Amavis-Modified: Mail body modified (using disclaimer) - mta5.zcs.xmission.com Received: from mta5.zcs.xmission.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mta5.zcs.xmission.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id iIQK_F3GUHFM; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 22:41:14 -0700 (MST) Received: from [10.0.10.142] (c-174-52-16-57.hsd1.ut.comcast.net [174.52.16.57]) by mta5.zcs.xmission.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 17E60128018F; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 22:41:14 -0700 (MST) To: Laszlo Ersek Cc: devel@edk2.groups.io, Jordan Justen , Ard Biesheuvel , Peter Grehan , Tom Lendacky References: <20201111031006.33564-1-rebecca@bsdio.com> <28151b00-7744-ff98-ddd0-52ec527c6f1c@redhat.com> From: "Rebecca Cran" Message-ID: Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2020 22:41:05 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <28151b00-7744-ff98-ddd0-52ec527c6f1c@redhat.com> X-XM-SPF: eid=1kd5MA-00016q-Ix;;;mid=;;;hst=in01.mta.xmission.com;;;ip=166.70.13.69;;;frm=rebecca@bsdio.com;;;spf=none X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 166.70.13.69 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: rebecca@bsdio.com X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on sa06.xmission.com X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.8 required=8.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_50, DCC_CHECK_NEGATIVE,NICE_REPLY_A,TR_XM_SB_Phish,T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG, XMSubLong,XMSubPhish11 autolearn=disabled version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Report: * -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP * 0.8 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60% * [score: 0.5002] * 0.7 XMSubLong Long Subject * 0.0 T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG BODY: No description available. * -0.0 DCC_CHECK_NEGATIVE Not listed in DCC * [sa06 1397; IP=ok Body=1 Fuz1=1] [Fuz2=1] * 1.5 XMSubPhish11 Phishy Language Subject * -0.3 NICE_REPLY_A Looks like a legit reply (A) * 0.0 TR_XM_SB_Phish Phishing flag in subject of message X-Spam-DCC: XMission; sa06 1397; IP=ok Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 X-Spam-Combo: *;Laszlo Ersek X-Spam-Relay-Country: X-Spam-Timing: total 468 ms - load_scoreonly_sql: 0.08 (0.0%), signal_user_changed: 12 (2.5%), b_tie_ro: 10 (2.2%), parse: 1.44 (0.3%), extract_message_metadata: 5 (1.1%), get_uri_detail_list: 0.55 (0.1%), tests_pri_-1000: 3.0 (0.6%), tests_pri_-950: 1.48 (0.3%), tests_pri_-900: 1.06 (0.2%), tests_pri_-90: 93 (20.0%), check_bayes: 92 (19.6%), b_tokenize: 4.9 (1.1%), b_tok_get_all: 6 (1.2%), b_comp_prob: 2.1 (0.5%), b_tok_touch_all: 76 (16.2%), b_finish: 0.86 (0.2%), tests_pri_0: 338 (72.1%), check_dkim_signature: 0.74 (0.2%), check_dkim_adsp: 51 (10.9%), poll_dns_idle: 42 (9.0%), tests_pri_10: 3.1 (0.7%), tests_pri_500: 7 (1.5%), rewrite_mail: 0.00 (0.0%) Subject: Re: [PATCH] OvmfPkg/Bhyve: Update Bhyve following changes to OVMF X-Spam-Flag: No X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Thu, 05 May 2016 13:38:54 -0600) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on in01.mta.xmission.com) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US On 11/11/20 12:57 PM, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > > Optimally, these changes should have been part of the SEV-ES feature > series, but we didn't realize. Sorry about the regression! I didn't expect people to take on the work of updating Bhyve when making incompatible changes to OvmfPkg, but that would be nice if they could! It's why I have a task to set up a Jenkins CI server, so I can catch regressions earlier. Being a lower priority platform, I suspect it's not something that should go into the existing Azure/Github based CI system. -- Rebecca Cran