On Tue, 26 Jan 2021, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 25.01.2021 22:27, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > --- a/xen/arch/x86/Kconfig > > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/Kconfig > > @@ -103,7 +103,7 @@ config HVM > > If unsure, say Y. > > > > config XEN_SHSTK > > - bool "Supervisor Shadow Stacks" > > + bool "Supervisor Shadow Stacks (EXPERT)" > > depends on HAS_AS_CET_SS && EXPERT > > default y > > ---help--- > > I agree with this addition, but I'm afraid I'm at least uncertain > about all the other ones made here, where ... > > > --- a/xen/common/Kconfig > > +++ b/xen/common/Kconfig > > @@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ config CORE_PARKING > > bool > > > > config GRANT_TABLE > > - bool "Grant table support" if EXPERT > > + bool "Grant table support (EXPERT)" if EXPERT > > default y > > ... like e.g. here, it's only the prompt that's conditional. IOW > like with the respective uses of UNSUPPORTED in some of the Arm > changes in patch 1, especially when the option's default is "yes" > it's not the feature that is an expert one, but its turning off > is considered an expert change. Which I don't think should be > expressed this way.
That's a good point actually. It makes sense to add the EXPERT tag to the one-line description of options that depends on EXPERT. Not where only the prompt depends on EXPERT and the option is actually default y. Which really narrows it down to XEN_SHSTK only. I'll reduce the patch to do just that.
