Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 77945: regressions - FAIL [and 2 more messages]

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 15.01.16 at 18:06, <ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-01-14 at 16:27 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>  * I don't have a clear design proposal for the above but I think Doug
>>    can probably provide one.  I'm hoping this is more a matter of
>>    thinking carefully than of extensive build system programming!
> 
> I think we should:
> 
> 1) Move /usr/lib/debug/xen-4.7-unstable.config to /boot. I previously
> didn't care about what path it was, but the usecase of having grub be able
> to react to the config (see below) is a strong reason to have it in /boot
> IMHO. Jan has said he won't veto such a change, AFAICT everyone else is
> happy with it.
> 
> 2) Assume that grub (specifically the patch in http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs 
> /?43420 and as used by osstest today) will at some point be modified to
> look at /boot/xenconfig-$version to decide whether to create an XSM entry
> or not instead of the presence of /boot/xenpolicy-$version. This step
> belongs here logically but chronologically could come much later since
> osstest will do the right thing even if there is a spurious
> /boot/xenpolicy-$version file (which is to say it will ignore the spurious
> entry and boot the right thing).
> 
> 3) Have tools/* always build the FLASK+XSM tools _and_ the FLASK policy and
> to always install both. Any related configure options can go away and we no
> longer need to worry about synchronising the configuration of the tools and
> xen trees, this is desirable because we would prefer to have one set of
> tools which gracefully handles differing hypervisor configurations over
> needing different sets of tools (FLASK+XSM was one of the few exceptions to
> that rule AFAICT).
> 
> I think with this plan there is no need to modify osstest.git, since it
> already does the right thing (which is, it sets XSM for Xen builds, which
> in turn enables FLASK and it does nothing for tools/* which is correct once
> #3 above has happened).
> 
> The only downside is a spurious /boot/xenpolicy-$version installed when the
> corresponding Xen binary doesn't support XSM, however given the assumption
> in #2 (which implies the user will never see a spurious grub entry, which
> is the important thing) and the fact that it avoids the complexity of
> having tools/* rely in some way on xen/.config I think that is a worthwhile
> trade-off.
> 
> Hopefully this simplifies a bunch of the arguments we have been having and
> provides a path forwards?
> 
> Objections?

My opinion on 1 and 2 is known; 3 seems like a good step to me.

Jan


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