Re: [Xen-devel] [For 4.9] Updating https://wiki.xenproject.org/wiki/Xen_Project_Release_Features to reflect support status of new features

[Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxx>]

On 27/06/17 09:53, Lars Kurth wrote:
> Hi all, (I think I CCed all stake-holders)
Hi Lars,

> to finish off the release documentation for 4.9, I need to add an extra
> column
> to https://wiki.xenproject.org/wiki/Xen_Project_Release_Features –
> because I was travelling, this dropped of my radar. There several
> decisions to be made:
> A) Decide which "features" to add
> B) Decide on the status of the feature
> C) Deal with status changes of any past features
>
> The first goal would be to decide on A and any new "features" under C.
> For B, I am OK to add "???" for now and point to this thread, until we
> have concluded the discussion
>
> Note that I tracked some of this as preparation for getting CNA status.
>  Items marked with * are not yet in the discussion document that I
> created for the security team and which we intend to discuss at the summit.
>
> For all of these, the naming convention is "Section in document" >
> "Feature" : "Support status". The definition of support status is added
> at the end of the mail: note that the text has not yet been fully
> agreed, but seems to reflect fairly well how we handled stuff in the past.
>
> == On A / B: I think we should add ==
> - Resource Management > Null Scheduler : tech preview or experimental
> - Virtual Firmware or PV Bootloader Support (not sure which) >  x86/Boot
> Xen on EFI platforms using GRUB2*  : ???
> - Hardware > ARM/Alternative Runtime Patching (ARM32 and ARM64): ???
> [note that this should probably have been added for 4.8, but I didn't
> add it]
I don't think this is worth mentioning it. It is more an enabler for 
implementing errata and new hardware feature than a feature in itself.
> - Hardware > ARM/System Error Protection* : ???
I would not mention it. We added an option to allow the administrator to 
limit the overhead of system error check protection. But any 
configuration that the default one should be used on trusted environment 
as hypervisor fault will leak to guest. So I don't think we can consider 
this as supported by the security team.
> - Hardware > ARM/Wait for Virtual Interrupt* : ???
Supported. But I would name "Configure behavior of WFI instruction 
executed by guest" or something similar.
> New Heading:  PV Protocols and Drivers
> - PV Protocols and Drivers > pvcalls : tech preview or experimental
> - PV Protocols and Drivers > 9pfs : tech preview or experimental
> - PV Protocols and Drivers* > sndif (sound device) : tech preview or
> experimental
> - PV Protocols and Drivers* > displif (PV display) : tech preview or
> experimental
>
> Did I miss anything?
>
> == On C ==
> - Security > Live Patching -
> see 
> https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2017-06/threads.html#03039
> - Security > Alternative 2pm : Supported – I think we should split this
> out – it is currently implicitly covered under "Virtual Machine
> Introspection"
FWIW, this is not supported on ARM yet.

Cheers,

--
Julien Grall

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