On 02.01.2025 19:33, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > On Fri, 27 Dec 2024, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 19.12.2024 10:29, Sergiy Kibrik wrote: >>> --- a/xen/common/Kconfig >>> +++ b/xen/common/Kconfig >>> @@ -516,4 +516,33 @@ config TRACEBUFFER >>> to be collected at run time for debugging or performance analysis. >>> Memory and execution overhead when not active is minimal. >>> >>> +menu "Supported hypercall interfaces" >>> + visible if DOM0LESS_BOOT && EXPERT >>> + >>> +config SYSCTL >>> + bool "Enable sysctl hypercall" >>> + depends on !PV_SHIM_EXCLUSIVE >>> + default y >>> + >>> +config DOMCTL >>> + bool "Enable domctl hypercalls" >>> + depends on !PV_SHIM_EXCLUSIVE >>> + default y >>> + >>> +config HVM_OP >>> + bool "Enable HVM hypercalls" >>> + depends on HVM >>> + default y >>> + >>> +config PLATFORM_OP >>> + bool "Enable platform hypercalls" >>> + depends on !PV_SHIM_EXCLUSIVE >>> + default y >> >> Just to re-iterate an earlier comment: Andrew (imo validly) raised concern of >> such negative dependencies. As said before, imo we'd better resolve that >> before >> extending the issue (whether by the patch I once sent or something else is >> then >> secondary). > > How would you express the !PV_SHIM_EXCLUSIVE dependency without using > negative dependencies?
By inverting the sense of the option (and renaming it), as (to a 1st approximation) requested by Andrew long ago, and as proposed in [1], which I think I pointed Sergiy at, and which continues to be lacking feedback. Jan [1] https://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2023-03/msg00040.html
