On 6/1/22 02:08, Jan Beulich wrote: > 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. > > In light of the "flask=late" aspect of patch 2, I'd like to suggest to > slightly alter wording here: "... requires looking for a policy file."
ack >> --- a/xen/xsm/xsm_core.c >> +++ b/xen/xsm/xsm_core.c >> @@ -55,19 +55,31 @@ static enum xsm_bootparam __initdata xsm_bootparam = >> XSM_BOOTPARAM_DUMMY; >> #endif >> >> +static bool __initdata policy_file_required = >> + IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_XSM_FLASK_DEFAULT); > > The variable may then also want renaming, to e.g. "find_policy_file". ack v/r, dps
