Re: [PATCH v10 02/12] xen: add a generic way to include binary files as variables

[Jürgen Groß <jgross@xxxxxxxx>]

On 19.05.20 09:58, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 19.05.2020 09:52, Jürgen Groß wrote:
> > On 19.05.20 09:47, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > On 19.05.2020 09:20, Juergen Gross wrote:
> > > > --- a/xen/xsm/flask/Makefile
> > > > +++ b/xen/xsm/flask/Makefile
> > > > @@ -39,6 +39,9 @@ $(subst include/,%/,$(AV_H_FILES)): $(AV_H_DEPEND) 
> > > > $(mkaccess) FORCE
> > > >    obj-bin-$(CONFIG_XSM_FLASK_POLICY) += flask-policy.o
> > > >    flask-policy.o: policy.bin
> > > >    
> > > > +flask-policy.S: $(XEN_ROOT)/xen/tools/binfile
> > > > +       $(XEN_ROOT)/xen/tools/binfile -i $@ policy.bin xsm_flask_init_policy
> > > I realize the script gets installed as executable, but such
> > > permissions can get lost. Typically I think we invoke the shell
> > > instead, with the script as first argument. Thoughts? Would
> > > affect patch 8 then as well. Sorry for noticing this only now.
> > Shall I resend or would you do that while committing?
> In patch 8 I'd be fine adding $(SHELL). Here, though, the question is
> whether it should be $(SHELL) or $(CONFIG_SHELL) - I don't have any
> idea why the latter exists in the first place. Daniel?
Why would different shells be needed in the two patches?

The binfile script is rather simple without any bash-isms in it (AFAICT
CONFIG_SHELL seems to prefer bash). So $(SHELL) should be fine IMO.


Juergen