From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
To: Anthony PERARD <anthony.perard@citrix.com>
Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>,
George Dunlap <george.dunlap@citrix.com>,
Ian Jackson <iwj@xenproject.org>, Julien Grall <julien@xen.org>,
Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org>, Wei Liu <wl@xen.org>,
xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
Subject: Re: [XEN PATCH] xen: allow XSM_FLASK_POLICY only if checkpolicy binary is available
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2021 08:25:31 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <be712d94-7fac-fc34-3f61-61819c5cbc42@suse.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210714161734.256246-1-anthony.perard@citrix.com>
On 14.07.2021 18:17, Anthony PERARD wrote:
> --- a/xen/common/Kconfig
> +++ b/xen/common/Kconfig
> @@ -25,6 +25,9 @@ config GRANT_TABLE
> config HAS_ALTERNATIVE
> bool
>
> +config HAS_CHECKPOLICY
> + def_bool $(success,$(CHECKPOLICY) -h 2>&1 | grep -q xen)
> +
This is no different from other aspects of "Kconfig vs tool chain
capabilities" sent out last August to start a discussion about
whether we really want such. Besides Jürgen no-one cared to reply
iirc, which to me means no-one really cares one way or the other.
Which I didn't think was the case ... So here we are again, with
all the same questions still open.
I'm not going to nack the patch, because there's an immediate
purpose / need, but I also can't avoid commenting (and I won't
put my name on it in any positive way, i.e. also not as a
committer; if anything then to record my reservations).
Independent of this I'd like to raise the question of whether
the chosen placement is optimal. Other capability checks live
in xen/Kconfig.
Jan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-07-15 6:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-07-14 16:17 [XEN PATCH] xen: allow XSM_FLASK_POLICY only if checkpolicy binary is available Anthony PERARD
2021-07-14 16:51 ` Jason Andryuk
2021-07-14 17:09 ` Andrew Cooper
2021-07-15 6:25 ` Jan Beulich [this message]
2021-07-16 12:36 ` Anthony PERARD
2021-07-16 13:15 ` Andrew Cooper
2021-07-16 14:34 ` Jan Beulich
2021-07-16 16:23 ` Anthony PERARD
2021-07-16 12:38 ` [XEN PATCH v2] " Anthony PERARD
2021-07-16 13:00 ` Andrew Cooper
2021-07-19 7:37 ` Jan Beulich
2021-07-19 10:47 ` Anthony PERARD
2021-07-19 11:04 ` Jan Beulich
2021-07-19 14:33 ` George Dunlap
2021-07-16 15:26 ` [XEN PATCH] " George Dunlap
2021-07-16 15:50 ` Juergen Gross
2021-07-16 15:56 ` Anthony PERARD
2021-07-16 16:14 ` Andrew Cooper
2021-07-19 7:10 ` Jan Beulich
2021-07-16 16:27 ` Anthony PERARD
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=be712d94-7fac-fc34-3f61-61819c5cbc42@suse.com \
--to=jbeulich@suse.com \
--cc=andrew.cooper3@citrix.com \
--cc=anthony.perard@citrix.com \
--cc=george.dunlap@citrix.com \
--cc=iwj@xenproject.org \
--cc=julien@xen.org \
--cc=sstabellini@kernel.org \
--cc=wl@xen.org \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).