On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 7:57 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> The check grub2 currently performs in one of its configuration scripts
>> is (reformatted):
>> if (grep -qx "CONFIG_XEN_DOM0=y" "${config}" 2> /dev/null ||
>> grep -qx "CONFIG_XEN_PRIVILEGED_GUEST=y" "${config}" 2> /dev/null);
>
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 08:13:58PM +0200, Paul Bolle wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-07-11 at 10:57 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > On 07/11/2013 03:08 AM, Paul Bolle wrote:
> > > But the Kconfig entry for XEN_PRIVILEGED_GUEST reads:
> > > # Dummy symbol since people have come to rely on the PRIVILEGED
On Thu, 2013-07-11 at 10:57 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 07/11/2013 03:08 AM, Paul Bolle wrote:
> > But the Kconfig entry for XEN_PRIVILEGED_GUEST reads:
> > # Dummy symbol since people have come to rely on the PRIVILEGED_GUEST
> > # name in tools.
> > config XEN_PRIVILEGED_GUEST
On 07/11/2013 03:08 AM, Paul Bolle wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-07-08 at 20:26 -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>> Could you explain to me please why the check in the scripts is
>> superfluous?
>
> The discussion has since moved on a bit, but I haven't answered this
> question yet.
>
> The check grub
On Mon, 2013-07-08 at 20:26 -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> Could you explain to me please why the check in the scripts is
> superfluous?
The discussion has since moved on a bit, but I haven't answered this
question yet.
The check grub2 currently performs in one of its configuration scripts
> So it would be nice to have at least some time to address this with upstream
> grub and the main distributions to patch their grub.
Sounds quite sensible. Michael would you be OK doing this?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Wednesday, July 10, 2013, 8:19:34 AM, you wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 12:34:58AM +0200, Sander Eikelenboom wrote:
>>
>> Tuesday, July 9, 2013, 5:05:54 PM, you wrote:
>>
>> > On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 10:48:40AM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>> >> Then that should be discussed on grub2
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 12:34:58AM +0200, Sander Eikelenboom wrote:
>
> Tuesday, July 9, 2013, 5:05:54 PM, you wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 10:48:40AM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> >> Then that should be discussed on grub2 to remove said check and modify
> >> the code so that it c
On 07/09/2013 03:34 PM, Sander Eikelenboom wrote:
>
> Grub does this in it's update script to prevent adding a xen + kernel
> combination that has no chance of booting when dom0 support has not been
> configured in the kernel.
> That doesn't seem to be a unreasonable thought.
>
Except it does
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 12:34:58AM +0200, Sander Eikelenboom wrote:
> Grub does this in it's update script to prevent adding a xen + kernel
> combination that has no chance of booting when dom0 support has not
> been configured in the kernel. That doesn't seem to be a unreasonable
> thought.
Actua
Tuesday, July 9, 2013, 5:05:54 PM, you wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 10:48:40AM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>> Then that should be discussed on grub2 to remove said check and modify
>> the code so that it can properly work without regression.
> Actually, the kernel patch removing that
On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 04:40:11PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> I am not clear what the boundary is. Let me get Linus's guidance on this
> after the rc0 madness.
You're joking, right?
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--
--
To unsubsc
On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 10:01:50PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 01:19:09PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > My thinking is that what should be done to have some sense of history
> > is that the patch in GRUB to not rely on kernel internals should be
> > done. Then
On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 01:19:09PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> My thinking is that what should be done to have some sense of history
> is that the patch in GRUB to not rely on kernel internals should be
> done. Then that git commit of that tree should be mentioned in this
> kernel patch.
On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 05:05:54PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 10:48:40AM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > Then that should be discussed on grub2 to remove said check and modify
> > the code so that it can properly work without regression.
>
> Actually, the kerne
On 07/09/2013 08:05 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 10:48:40AM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>> Then that should be discussed on grub2 to remove said check and modify
>> the code so that it can properly work without regression.
>
> Actually, the kernel patch removing tha
On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 10:48:40AM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> Then that should be discussed on grub2 to remove said check and modify
> the code so that it can properly work without regression.
Actually, the kernel patch removing that symbol should be applied so
that grub2 breaks faster.
>>> On 09.07.13 at 16:48, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> Dom0 has been both - but there is nothing wrong with seperating these
> two labels. And therein I was thinking that the 'hardware backend domain'
> should be the introduced. I am not good with names so the best option
> seems CONFIG_XEN_PRIV
On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 08:41:12AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 09.07.13 at 02:26, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
> >>> wrote:
> > Could you explain to me please why the check in the scripts is superfluous?
>
> This is not really the question - _any_ such check can only be
> wrong. The boot loader
>>> On 09.07.13 at 02:26, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> Could you explain to me please why the check in the scripts is superfluous?
This is not really the question - _any_ such check can only be
wrong. The boot loader has absolutely no business caring about
kernel internals, and the kernel shoul
Paul Bolle wrote:
>On Mon, 2013-07-08 at 22:58 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 01:29:40PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> > What. The. Fuck.
>>
>> This is just marvellous: grub2 has a bunch of scripts in /etc/grub.d
>> which rely on the presence of kernel config files in
On Mon, 2013-07-08 at 22:58 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 01:29:40PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > What. The. Fuck.
>
> This is just marvellous: grub2 has a bunch of scripts in /etc/grub.d
> which rely on the presence of kernel config files in /boot or / and
> greps th
On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 01:29:40PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> What. The. Fuck.
This is just marvellous: grub2 has a bunch of scripts in /etc/grub.d
which rely on the presence of kernel config files in /boot or / and
greps them in order to do the menu entries based on the built-in
features it f
On 07/08/2013 12:34 PM, Matt Wilson wrote:
>
> For reference, here's a related Debian bug report:
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=633127
>
> Summary: grub2 scripts parse /boot/config-$(uname -r)
>
What. The. Fuck.
-hpa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the l
On 07/08/2013 12:28 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 08:28:24AM +0200, Michael Opdenacker wrote:
>> This patch proposes to remove the XEN_PRIVILEGED_GUEST kernel
>> configuration parameter defined in arch/x86/xen/Kconfig, but used
>> nowhere in the makefiles and source cod
On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 03:28:54PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 08:28:24AM +0200, Michael Opdenacker wrote:
> > This patch proposes to remove the XEN_PRIVILEGED_GUEST kernel
> > configuration parameter defined in arch/x86/xen/Kconfig, but used
> > nowhere in the mak
On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 08:28:24AM +0200, Michael Opdenacker wrote:
> This patch proposes to remove the XEN_PRIVILEGED_GUEST kernel
> configuration parameter defined in arch/x86/xen/Kconfig, but used
> nowhere in the makefiles and source code.
>
> This dummy parameter was added 3 years back, and i
This patch proposes to remove the XEN_PRIVILEGED_GUEST kernel
configuration parameter defined in arch/x86/xen/Kconfig, but used
nowhere in the makefiles and source code.
This dummy parameter was added 3 years back, and it may
make sense to remove it now, as the reasons to use it were not
very clea
28 matches
Mail list logo
