On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 08:30:11AM GMT, Jeff Xu wrote: > Hi Lorenzo > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 8:14 AM Lorenzo Stoakes > <lorenzo.stoakes@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 07:45:56AM GMT, Jeff Xu wrote: > > > HI Andrew > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 3:55 PM <jeffxu@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > From: Jeff Xu <jeffxu@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > Add more testcases and increase test coverage, e.g. add > > > > get_vma_size to check VMA size and prot bits. > > > > This commit message is ridiculously short for such a massive change, even for > > test code. > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please pull the self-test part of this patch series to mm-unstable ? > > > It will help to prevent regression. > > > > No, please don't. > > > > This needs review. > > > > These tests establish a precedent as to how mseal should behave, this is > > something that needs community review, not to just be taken. > > > > There's already been a great deal of confusion/contentious discussion > > around mseal() and its implementation. > > > > Pushing in ~800 lines of test code asserting how mseal() should behave > > without review isn't helping things. > > > > Also, this is a really unusual way to send a series - why is this a 2/2 in > > reply to the 1/2 and no cover letter? Why is this change totally unrelated > > to the other patch? > > > > Can you send this as a separate patch, preferably as an RFC so we can > > ensure that we all agree on how mseal() should behave? > > > > Sorry to be contentious here, but I think we need to find a more > > constructive, collaborative way forward with mseal() and to act with a > > little more caution, given the problems that the original series has caused > > I'd think this is in the best interests of all. > > > > Thanks for understanding! > > > There have been two bugs I found recently on mseal. > One during V2 of in-loop change and the other mentioned in 1/2 of this patch. > Jeff you've ignored pretty much everything I've said here. This is not collaboration. And you keep doing this + causing disharmony among other devleopers. It's getting tiresome, and you need to do better. If you insist on review for this patch as it stands - NACK. The commit message is ludicriously short, you've not sent the series correctly, and you are ignoring feedback. Resend this with a substantially improved commit message and ideally some actual comments in your tests rather than a giant lump of code which constitutes 'how Jeff feels mseal() should work'. Then when people give feedback - listen.
