[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] Clarifying the state of ARINC653 scheduler (and other components) in Xen 4.5 and beyond
Alright, if nobody is willing to come up with a definition of experimental/preview/supported/deprecated, I will based on what I have seen Lars > On 9 Jun 2015, at 10:53, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>> On 08.06.15 at 22:59, <dario.faggioli@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Mon, 2015-06-08 at 14:01 +0100, Lars Kurth wrote: >>>> On 8 Jun 2015, at 13:19, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>> In MAINTAINERS S: Supported means: >>>> >>>> "Someone is actually paid to look after this.", which I think is >>>> distinct from "This works well enough that the project is happy to >>>> recommend it is used in production". It's a shame that Supported can be >>>> taken to mean both things. >>>> >>>> For reference Maintained is "Someone actually looks after it.". >>>> >>>> Alternatively if someone can think of another way to express "paid >>>> maintainer" we could switch to that. >>> >>> And then there is of course the question what we do with ARINC653. >>> >> Not sure we actually need to do something. The status in MAINTAINERS is >> consistent with the existing semantic, as there's actually people >> actively looking after the scheduler (and paid to do so, AFAIK). >> >> Wrt the wiki page, the best way of capturing the state of things is, >> basing on what's in there for the other schedulers, 'Supported' there >> too. The scheduler has a very limited scope, and is useful only in a >> handful of situations, and that's by design. But for those situations it >> works pretty well, AFAIK. >> >> Moreover, there is people in the community providing help to interested >> users on how to set it up (there has been a thread on xen-users about >> this rather recently). >> >> Whether we should recommend to use it in production, well, I think we >> could, of course for those people and only for them having a requirement >> for compliance with the ARINC653 standard, which certainly is not the >> most common thing around. > > But you understand that one primary aspect of whether something > is to be considered supported is whether that code, if found to be > flawed, may end up triggering security advisories? I.e. apart from > people looking after it and people using it (or showing interest to do > so) we also need to be convinced that the code quality is good > enough. The situation of tmem (also marked Supported in > ./MAINTAINERS) is the prime example of when that's not > (recognizably) the case. And the bug report (that luckily didn't need > to result in an XSA for other reasons) leading to > http://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2015-06/msg01018.html > shows that the code may not have got audited from a security > perspective. > > Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |