> On 12 Sep 2017, at 16:35, Rich Persaud <pers...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sep 11, 2017, at 13:01, George Dunlap <george.dun...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>
>> +### XSM & FLASK
>> +
>> + Status: Experimental
>> +
>> +Compile time disabled
>> +
>> +### XSM & FLASK support for IS_PRIV
>> +
>> + Status: Experimental
>
> In which specific areas is XSM lacking in Functional completeness, Functional
> stability and/or Interface stability, resulting in "Experimental" status?
> What changes to XSM would be needed for it to qualify for "Supported" status?
I think the issue in this case may be lack of automated testing or known
testing - see
https://www.mail-archive.com/xen-devel@lists.xen.org/msg123768.html
<https://www.mail-archive.com/xen-devel@lists.xen.org/msg123768.html>
I am not quite sure what the status of XSM testing in OSSTEST is: I think there
is something there, but not sure what.
> If there will be no security support for features in Experimental status,
> would Xen Project accept patches to fix XSM security issues? Could
> downstream projects issue CVEs for XSM security issues, if these will not be
> issued by Xen Project?
This question I have to defer to members of the security team.
Lars
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
