[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH v1 01/18] kconfig: allow configuration of maximum modules
- To: "Daniel P. Smith" <dpsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2022 09:27:02 +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=+wej7D2PPP022yB4o0M5gh/c5kG3KcO0qdL9cLY/AVQ=; b=Po4L7lMt/enePW1gLUD/4A5CjhH2a4lYSa5OhozSKViFgb8eGk/yqLK5xY6myap3QmPX249Qe8upTvC4YxFwlxy7o+QwKBF8FVzRLC3hu+nczcQdN/3Z3pc+8HsG+IbssLnYRCIO4zIAdfOzJYrhJsKtCDGm9NQzt410yJWJ3VRzMENaNHwRVgz3C4epBSwhzYLX49bmt/i1pFjgQAf0DcT5dJ+gZ93i8GCdQ/yptirqBMln6v0VJ5qBDAJpV+pbmKNaoR3oWi6Ww/C/Pv5+EIMhHWyZgxoeHh9uNYiatugkIttC/qsRoYvB1IEgSNMDNh6DyYi/qTOCox5Buk63+Q==
- Arc-seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=Pk8j8xdqh16rT+vy+lRDLwkkGUNRKtmhGhtOo37kSZtZME8eSDPV3dzKXVyIc0eAj7DT5xa7qEAhdGMUP6U+s2UtI5fYV58D+xC0KMizRoxtJ4cG+fHPGkb2CZ4bBr9qUN3wxSTO0cbxNBed0t9HsICmvqf2nzULOKvA6Pfd7zQyu62yL1dKzeWoV/ccz3sCQHGTx+FsQ7yKhWW6FafZkKJmfNLtCuOPKPe45EvRr5Ud0OYuB1So4Piych++9yRh2kMPQQtXg9bbii0rxvXerOcgUlaFwtxFqJKpjGmCPnoZGdMXXB4MaIMclXKYO1HSl9x8MNF3MJo3Sj1cnIdOyQ==
- Authentication-results: dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;dmarc=none action=none header.from=suse.com;
- Cc: scott.davis@xxxxxxxxxx, christopher.clark@xxxxxxxxxx, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx>, Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>, Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>, Bertrand Marquis <bertrand.marquis@xxxxxxx>, Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Volodymyr Babchuk <Volodymyr_Babchuk@xxxxxxxx>, Wei Liu <wl@xxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Wed, 20 Jul 2022 07:27:37 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
On 19.07.2022 19:02, Daniel P. Smith wrote:
> On 7/19/22 05:32, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 06.07.2022 23:04, Daniel P. Smith wrote:
>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/efi/efi-boot.h
>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/efi/efi-boot.h
>>> @@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ static multiboot_info_t __initdata mbi = {
>>> * The array size needs to be one larger than the number of modules we
>>> * support - see __start_xen().
>>> */
>>> -static module_t __initdata mb_modules[5];
>>> +static module_t __initdata mb_modules[CONFIG_NR_BOOTMODS + 1];
>>
>> If the build admin selected 1, I'm pretty sure about nothing would work.
>> I think you want max(5, CONFIG_NR_BOOTMODS) or
>> max(4, CONFIG_NR_BOOTMODS) + 1 here and ...
>
> Actually, I reasoned this out and 1 is in fact a valid value. It would
> mean Xen + Dom0 Linux kernel with embedded initramfs with no externally
> loaded XSM policy and no boot time microcode patching. This is a working
> configuration, but open to debate if it is a desirable configuration.
> The question is whether it is desired to block someone from building
> such a configuration, or any number between 1 and 4. If the answer is
> yes, then why not just set the lower bound of the range in the Kconfig
> file instead of having to maintain a hard-coded lower bound in a max
> marco across multiple locations?
While I'd be fine with the lower bounds being raised, I wouldn't be very
happy with seeing those lower bounds becoming arch-specific.
Jan
|
