[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH RFC] SUPPORT.md: Make all security support explicit
- To: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxx>
- From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 2 May 2023 13:27:47 +0200
- Arc-authentication-results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=suse.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=suse.com; dkim=pass header.d=suse.com; arc=none
- Arc-message-signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-1; bh=dB9bahqQeSO9ULtaIOJCrZaIgtCz4kfEoGdjEEz10DY=; b=KJb1NTkiWAfURYKljwQO68ZOOLqd49eSDsjp9w3/WXAW8k6B1hf74xacLa24VO5mHM3oWZfNNukTlFcRFGUFmtGQTWPLRWc9RzFNex0zvI6VBqdz+NOS3GRORsMeNZVNE1iM6rQf2Aaks/5pHPy7xEGTNGLuRc1YIYKpp4LOr3YUqA3l/gJvNd1fGCmYklZEXLvv5IB0sXpVp6Dwz3+u4IuNwWrlUtFF7/VDbiUEkYnJHWnYTc6JUAdx/xUxW7fO0uwKY7eYAkF3jUOGyaTR+63+vRw7RgVxQ/F2tbUay5tJ/eGwxc1LeBLINS3uZ3nz1XGHkEIOuyYSMC5FUwGAVA==
- Arc-seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=f4BbJ2WtFMlwH/xIgqBUosHoNGpHeN4SOvdzvm+y1aqyNI1svP2fkQMVP+ciD9y/MUuADR4cRgTQCzafMKGeAHjWMnAjlKtClFB41q5hpOwQEsVfL89zLFb48IGnHiAlU9Sa+csrGCTho1/vug2JY1GI0BUUzcP1eku0tHHEdSEiTpHcrI6oBLO80zeHCve8r4bR5PMRrYgyzzhBe83iAo7gGMJE+nXDujcvNaMvzj6PIRInR5GsjjervXSJFes1776p+FYz03ZdVO0/SX7/QVkPdHeiqKo5oCs799b9R/AHuUh/YchqNj9igKuyQXvwFWvLNla0XhEp26o5ZAeHpg==
- Authentication-results: dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;dmarc=none action=none header.from=suse.com;
- Cc: Wei Liu <wl@xxxxxxx>, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper@xxxxxxxxx>, Roger Pau Monne <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxx>, Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>, Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Delivery-date: Tue, 02 May 2023 11:28:10 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
On 28.04.2023 10:14, George Dunlap wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 9:12 AM George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> It occurred to me that in many (most? all?) cases it would be more
> effective to define the security support parameters in the
> documentation itself.
I think I agree; the alternative of needing to look in two places (one
telling the syntax, the other telling whether it's "legitimate" to use)
would be prone to people omitting the 2nd step. And this isn't going to
be meaningfully more work right now: Any option we don't mean to
security-support won't need annotating, i.e. like in SUPPORT.md absence
of an explicit statement would mean "not supported".
While in the examples you list only command line options, I guess the
same could apply to xl.cfg / xl.conf ones? Albeit I notice xl.cfg.5.pod.in
in its title specifically says "syntax" right now, which then may want
changing.
For Kconfig items it's not as clear, because I wouldn't consider the
various Kconfig files "documentation", yet I guess we shouldn't require
people to look at source code.
Jan
|
