[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH V5 04/22] xen/ioreq: Make x86's IOREQ feature common

On 27.01.21 22:46, Stefano Stabellini wrote:

Hi Stefano, all

On Wed, 27 Jan 2021, Oleksandr wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 at 19:09, Oleksandr Tyshchenko <olekstysh@xxxxxxxxx>
Please note, this patch depends on the following which is
on review:
The effort (to get it upstreamed) was paused because of
the security issue around that code (XSA-348).
I read this comment as "This series should be applied on top the patch
X". However, looking at your branch, I can't see the patch. What did I
You didn't miss anything. Patch series doesn't contain it. I mentioned
about this patch in order not to forget about it
and draw reviewer's attention. Looks like, the activity (to get it
upstreamed) hasn't been resumed yet and I don't know what we should do
with that dependency
in the context of this series...
I will reply what I wrote on IRC privately :). I think this fine to defer it
to after Xen 4.15 because IOREQ will be in tech preview.
Thank you. I got a request to make a possibility for user to select IOREQ via
the menuconfig on Arm. Saying tech preview do you mean that I also need to put
it under CONFIG_EXPERT on Arm?
Normally I would say that unless it actually takes an expert to enable
the feature, it is better to make it depend on CONFIG_UNSUPPORTED [1].

However, in this case, it might actually take an expert :-)
Additional patches are still required to enable the feature at the
toolstack level, and also the user needs to build a userspace ioreq
server. So in this case I am fine either way. I'll leave it up to you
and Julien to pick the best one.

Either way, please add "(EXPERT)" or "(UNSUPPORTED)" in the one-line
kconfig description for ARM if possible.

[1] https://marc.info/?l=xen-devel&m=161168780401884

Thank you for the explanation, personally I would prefer EXPERT, but...

It would be really nice if we could agreed regarding that *common* Kconfig option before I submit V6 (which would probably avoid me to send V7 I hope).

Now I see it as following (please note, it is a subject for new patch in this series, which should come last):

+++ b/xen/common/Kconfig
@@ -137,7 +137,13 @@ config HYPFS_CONFIG
          want to hide the .config contents from dom0.

-       bool
+       bool "IOREQ support" if EXPERT || X86
+       default X86
+       depends on HVM
+       ---help---
+         Enables generic mechanism for providing emulated devices to the guests.
+         If unsure, say Y.

 config KEXEC
        bool "kexec support"

Looks like, it works this way for both archs, but for me it looks a bit ugly

I would appreciate your input on that.


Oleksandr Tyshchenko



Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.