[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH v5 20/44] x86/boot: convert xsm policy loading to struct boot_module
- To: "Daniel P. Smith" <dpsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- From: Jason Andryuk <jason.andryuk@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2024 13:23:51 -0400
- Arc-authentication-results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass (sender ip is 165.204.84.17) smtp.rcpttodomain=apertussolutions.com smtp.mailfrom=amd.com; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine sp=quarantine pct=100) action=none header.from=amd.com; dkim=none (message not signed); arc=none (0)
- Arc-message-signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector10001; 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=leP4gX5/SNqQhOp0D9s9bo127bam98/WJ0aUgDJozjY=; b=bdhkQxN1MCdrmkPw3NsTDeFPGc1gHfiX6Vx6GBVJkLhzuXm16vNiBih+y16dO7uuiK+Mvp7AbsuyQB9QRWrOa7dgVLXUfrHPdIKhexz+13UDsIPpNziHV4uJ46EwzOpAQiaqryd+2jFFnlIYUyV9Lnc1qsj0Xx5o8i6oA9dXCZ3n25fpggUvtej+VHyZrkW5yaM074qtN5BYNGbbJ8tqcKP/tp9FeQug/KMiBCRluwwvZ2j6eJEh323tehnuCnVhFma29QnMHeWUEV9aKaoad7AbGeLpZ3rP7kulx0froJnX+NFv/TS3PjN6QlIsDtJHAnWrmadfzRsvztl8d8kaNA==
- Arc-seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector10001; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=CX1/Uu8k/GQXcNbk3kFbsBCmw1R/iiPjhMBP6Krd8C6XYeQsAZCly5rbVBGauaKG2JYUnDNL/0v8Jso9cDjg4rVgY1AwqX+46iqrTPgC3prjoqKJIyaCEBnDX4dVaa3j5jw3ZiSfImAAL7YELSITCrjPoVUN9f272Wh9e+Ki0ixLT2k+rfOMVpqhlJlLCWLJt9A60AoloUrWzWP/iTisYa1NK714FpEfOa+/kvfe4uKru1jR/t3gjBZP+1OCLX2By895u1Zm8P7f6ji3X+Pa7HLN6Q7sRoNoGFoWNeVQkWIyzrJI+X35cqtf8cLafUnlfzUg4SeA/BchqageM4s+Zw==
- Cc: <christopher.w.clark@xxxxxxxxx>, <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxx>, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Thu, 10 Oct 2024 17:24:16 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
On 2024-10-09 13:21, Daniel P. Smith wrote:
On 10/8/24 12:13, Jason Andryuk wrote:
On 2024-10-06 17:49, Daniel P. Smith wrote:
Iterate through the unclaimed struct boot_module to see if any are an
XSM FLASK
policy. If one is located, mark it as an xsm policy.
Signed-off-by: Daniel P. Smith <dpsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
@@ -161,6 +162,14 @@ int __init xsm_multiboot_init(
}
ret = xsm_core_init(policy_buffer, policy_size);
+ if ( ret == 0 )
+ {
+ int idx = first_boot_module_index(bi, BOOTMOD_XSM_POLICY);
+
+ /* If the policy was loaded from a boot module, mark it
consumed */
+ if ( idx >= 0 )
+ bi->mods[idx].flags |= BOOTMOD_FLAG_X86_CONSUMED;
Maybe xsm_multiboot_policy_init() should return the idx used instead
of having a second search? (Also, xsm_multiboot_policy_init() can't
fail?)
I was debating on whether to make similar changes because the existing
logic just seems sub-optimal. Currently I am looking to just write an
independent XSM patch that looks at both this function and the device
tree version of the function. Specifically, looking to use the
IS_ENABLED() macro instead of #ifdef to reduce code, provide better code
coverage, and to refine the logic.
Ok.
+ }
bootstrap_map(NULL);
return 0;
The other changes look okay.
R-b then?
Reviewed-by: Jason Andryuk <jason.andryuk@xxxxxxx>
Regards,
Jason
|
