linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH REBASED] KVM: x86: SVM: Fix one redefine issue about VMCB_AVIC_APIC_BAR

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ZC4vG09or7AfUA7L@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 5 Apr 2023 19:31:55 -0700
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To:     Xinghui Li <korantwork@...il.com>
Cc:     pbonzini@...hat.com, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
        mlevitsk@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, Xinghui Li <korantli@...cent.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH REBASED] KVM: x86: SVM: Fix one redefine issue about VMCB_AVIC_APIC_BAR_MASK

On Thu, Apr 06, 2023, Xinghui Li wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 7:44 AM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 03 Apr 2023 17:52:00 +0800, korantwork@...il.com wrote:
> > > VMCB_AVIC_APIC_BAR_MASK is defined twice with the same value in svm.h,
> > > which is meaningless. Delete the duplicate one.
> >
> > Applied to kvm-x86 svm, thanks!
> >
> > In the future, please don't use "PATCH REBASED".  If you're sending a new
> > version of a patch that's been rebased, then the revision number needs to be
> > bumped.  The fact that the only change is that the patch was rebased isn't
> > relevant as far as versioning is concerned, it's still a new version.  The
> > cover letter and/or ignored part of the patch is where the delta between
> > versions should be captured.
> >
> > And in this case, there really was no need to send a new version, the original
> > patch still applies cleanly.  I suspect that the REBASED version was sent as a
> > form of a ping, which again is not the right way to ping a patch/series.  If you
> > want to ping, please reply to the original patch.  Unnecessarily sending new
> > versions means more patches to sort through, i.e. makes maintainers lives harder,
> > not easier.
> >
> Firstly, I'm so so SORRY to burden you in this way.
> I found the last patch can't be am directly, so I send a new patch
> with the last rebased code.

Ah, try `git am -3`, i.e. tell git to try a 3-way merge between the patch, its
base, and what you're applying on.  I'm sure there are situations where a 3-way
merge is unwanted, e.g. maybe if someone needs to be super paranoid?  But for me
personally at least, I pretty much always run am with -3.

> I used to believe that this would alleviate your burden, but
> unfortunately, it had the opposite effect.
> Again, sorry for my wrong operation.

No worries, it's not a big deal.  My lengthy response was purely to help avoid
similar mistakes in the future.

Thanks!