Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v1] Add build-id to XENVER hypercall.

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 09.10.15 at 04:56, <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> However they also change the behavior of the existing hypercall
> for XENVER_[compile_info|changeset|commandline] and make them
> dom0 accessible. This is if XSM is built in or not (though with
> XSM one can expose it to a guest if desired).

Wasn't the outcome of the previous discussion that we should not
alter default behavior for existing sub-ops? And even if I'm
misremembering, I can see reasons for not exposing the command
line, but what value has not exposing compile info and changeset
again? The more that the tool stack uses the two, and as we know
tool stacks or parts thereof can live in unprivileged domains. Plus
there is also a (hg-centric and hence generally broken) attempt to
store it in hvm_save().

> Please take a look and provide your feedback at your leisure.
> 
> Note:
>  * Hadn't tried compiling it on ARM cross compiler lately. In
>    the past I had to #ifdef CONFIG_ARM as the ARM code did not
>    use any ELF code so none of the ELF parts made any sense.
>  * The EFI build works kindof. It is missing an build_id.o stanza.

Hmm, I'm confused: Does this patch set work everywhere, or does
it not? In the latter case, shouldn't it be tagged RFC?

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel