Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH for-4.11 1/2] XSM: adjust Kconfig names

From: Julien Grall <julien.grall@arm.com>
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>,
	Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org>,
	Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH for-4.11 1/2] XSM: adjust Kconfig names
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2019 15:44:36 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <d5d5624b-4dfe-9160-dcec-a1dfe70041b7@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5D08F4AA020000780023953E@prv1-mh.provo.novell.com>

(+ Ian)

On 18/06/2019 15:26, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 18.06.19 at 16:11, <julien.grall@arm.com> wrote:
>> On 18/06/2019 15:04, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> Since the Kconfig option renaming was not backported, the new uses of
>>> involved CONFIG_* settings should have been adopted to the existing
>>> names in the XSA-295 series. Do this now, also changing XSM_SILO to just
>>> SILO to better match its FLASK counterpart.
>>>
>>> To avoid breaking the Kconfig menu structure also adjust XSM_POLICY's
>>> dependency (as was also silently done on master during the renaming).
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
>>
>> Sorry for the breakage. To avoid such blunder during XSAs, would it be possible
>> to test them on osstest before they are published?
> 
> That's an option, but would cause further delays. How exactly to
> arrange for this I'm the wrong one to ask, though.

Indeed, however testings need to be done manually at the moment. With 6 trees to 
take care, this is more likely going to delay more than automatic testing.

Anyway, that's only a suggestion to improve XSA testings (at least on Arm). :)

> 
> But let's face it: The patch changing Kconfig not having applied
> without fuzz should have told whoever did the backport to look
> more closely.
> 
> What I'd like to ask for in the future in any case though is that after
> pushing stuff to stable trees you would please check the osstest
> reports, and in case of regressions invest at least some time into
> figuring out what broke. Right now, even with the XSM tests
> (hopefully) taken care of there's still a flood of armhf failures, which
> may or may not be due to environmental issues.

I usually look over osstest but fail to detect this was an issue because of the 
XSAs. Regarding the other armhf failure, Ian already pointed out on IRC.

However, I will not have time to look at it before Xen Summit. Maybe Stefano can?

>> Also, do we need to update the advisory?
> 
> Dunno. I didn't do full analysis of what may go wrong, I've just worked
> my way far enough to understand what needs fixing. Whether an
> update is needed imo largely depends on whether the purpose of the
> patches wasn't fulfilled. People actually using XSM will notice very
> quickly that things don't work anymore, as can be seen from the
> osstest cases.

AFAICT, Arm does not seem to be affected by the problem (at least osstest does 
not complain). I would not expect x86 users to merge those patch, so maybe it 
should be ok.

Cheers,

-- 
Julien Grall

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel