On 31.05.2022 17:08, Daniel P. Smith wrote:
> It is possible to select a few different build configurations that results in
> the unnecessary walking of the boot module list looking for a policy module.
> This specifically occurs when the flask policy is enabled but either the dummy
> or the SILO policy is selected as the enforcing policy. This is not ideal for
> configurations like hyperlaunch and dom0less when there could be a number of
> modules to be walked or doing an unnecessary device tree lookup.
>
> This patch introduces the policy_file_required flag for tracking when an XSM
> policy module requires a policy file. Only when the policy_file_required flag
> is set to true, will XSM search the boot modules for a policy file.
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel P. Smith <dpsm...@apertussolutions.com>
Looks technically okay, so
Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
but couldn't you ...
> @@ -148,7 +160,7 @@ int __init xsm_multiboot_init(
>
> printk("XSM Framework v" XSM_FRAMEWORK_VERSION " initialized\n");
>
> - if ( XSM_MAGIC )
> + if ( policy_file_required && XSM_MAGIC )
> {
> ret = xsm_multiboot_policy_init(module_map, mbi, &policy_buffer,
> &policy_size);
> @@ -176,7 +188,7 @@ int __init xsm_dt_init(void)
>
> printk("XSM Framework v" XSM_FRAMEWORK_VERSION " initialized\n");
>
> - if ( XSM_MAGIC )
> + if ( policy_file_required && XSM_MAGIC )
> {
> ret = xsm_dt_policy_init(&policy_buffer, &policy_size);
> if ( ret )
... drop the two "&& XSM_MAGIC" here at this time? Afaict policy_file_required
cannot be true when XSM_MAGIC is zero.
Jan
