On 06.08.2021 23:41, Daniel P. Smith wrote:
> While not all of the points of contentions nor all of my concerns are
> all addressed, I would like to hope that v3 is seen as an attempt
> compromise, those compromises are acceptable, and that I can begin to
> bring the next patch set forward. Thank y
On 06.08.2021 23:41, Daniel P. Smith wrote:
> My concerns/issues:
> B1. The irony that XSM is unsupported but XSM + SILO is supported (for
> Arm)
Just one remark here: Prior to SILO introduction (and to some perhaps
ever afterwards), just like !XSM stood for "XSM dummy module", XSM
stood for "
On 7/27/21 9:39 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I have read the thread here and it seems that there are some
> disagreements which may be blocking progress.
>
> The mailing list thread is a rather tangled way of dealing with this.
> I did read it but I feel I am lacking some of the context and/or
> havin
I have read the thread here and it seems that there are some
disagreements which may be blocking progress.
The mailing list thread is a rather tangled way of dealing with this.
I did read it but I feel I am lacking some of the context and/or
having trouble synthesising it.
Daniel, if you agree wi
On 16.07.2021 16:15, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 16/07/2021 08:23, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 12.07.2021 22:32, Daniel P. Smith wrote:
>>> The passing of an xsm_default_t at each of the xsm hook call sites
>>> served different functions depending on whether XSM was enabled or not.
>>> When XSM was not
On 16/07/2021 08:23, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 12.07.2021 22:32, Daniel P. Smith wrote:
>> The passing of an xsm_default_t at each of the xsm hook call sites
>> served different functions depending on whether XSM was enabled or not.
>> When XSM was not enabled it attempted to function as a link-time
On 12.07.2021 22:32, Daniel P. Smith wrote:
> --- a/xen/include/xsm/xsm.h
> +++ b/xen/include/xsm/xsm.h
> @@ -30,53 +30,53 @@ static inline void xsm_security_domaininfo (struct domain
> *d,
> alternative_vcall(xsm_ops.security_domaininfo, d, info);
> }
>
> -static inline int xsm_domain_cre
On 12.07.2021 22:32, Daniel P. Smith wrote:
> The passing of an xsm_default_t at each of the xsm hook call sites
> served different functions depending on whether XSM was enabled or not.
> When XSM was not enabled it attempted to function as a link-time check
> that declared default action at the c
The passing of an xsm_default_t at each of the xsm hook call sites
served different functions depending on whether XSM was enabled or not.
When XSM was not enabled it attempted to function as a link-time check
that declared default action at the call site matched the default
declared action for tha
