From: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
To: Jonathan Creekmore <jonathan.creekmore@gmail.com>,
David Vrabel <david.vrabel@citrix.com>
Cc: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, keir@xen.org, jbeulich@suse.com,
andrew.cooper3@citrix.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: wrap kexec feature with CONFIG_KEXEC
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 11:36:17 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1441103777.27618.31.camel@citrix.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <F54E6C42-9BD2-4DDD-8573-D71D46320A47@gmail.com>
On Thu, 2015-08-27 at 10:44 -0500, Jonathan Creekmore wrote:
> >
> > On Aug 27, 2015, at 10:27 AM, David Vrabel <david.vrabel@citrix.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > On 27/08/15 15:47, Jonathan Creekmore wrote:
> > > Add the appropriate #if checks around the kexec code in the x86
> > > codebase
> > > so that the feature can actually be turned off by the flag instead of
> > > always required to be enabled on x86.
> >
> > What's your use case for this?
> >
>
> The use case is for a slimmed down version of the hypervisor that can be
> used as a security hypervisor, exposing as little extra functionality as
> possible. When looking for features to trim out to reduce the attack
> surface, I saw the flag for KEXEC and wanted to disable that, then ran
> into compile problems.
Can this not be achieved at runtime with XSM?
In general (i.e. not 100% consistently, I think) we have tended to avoid
making things user-facing compile time options. Many of the existing
CONFIG_* and HAVE_* are really about things which are arch dependent, or
require specific porting to each arch etc. I think the KEXEC flag is one of
those.
This keeps the test matrix more reasonable (unlike e.g. Linux's Kconfig)
and also helps us by ensuring that users are mostly running one of a small
number of possible configs.
I slightly fear that after Kexec you are going to want to strip out more
and more stuff...
Ian.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-09-01 10:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-08-27 14:47 [PATCH] x86: wrap kexec feature with CONFIG_KEXEC Jonathan Creekmore
2015-08-27 15:22 ` Jan Beulich
2015-08-27 15:22 ` Andrew Cooper
2015-08-27 15:34 ` Jan Beulich
2015-08-27 15:39 ` Andrew Cooper
2015-08-27 15:27 ` David Vrabel
2015-08-27 15:35 ` Jan Beulich
2015-08-27 15:44 ` Jonathan Creekmore
2015-09-01 10:36 ` Ian Campbell [this message]
2015-09-01 10:44 ` Andrew Cooper
2015-09-01 10:54 ` Jan Beulich
2015-09-01 10:59 ` Andrew Cooper
2015-09-01 14:29 ` Jonathan Creekmore
2015-09-01 15:00 ` Jan Beulich
2015-09-01 17:55 ` Jonathan Creekmore
2015-09-02 6:53 ` Jan Beulich
2015-09-02 10:00 ` Andrew Cooper
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1441103777.27618.31.camel@citrix.com \
--to=ian.campbell@citrix.com \
--cc=andrew.cooper3@citrix.com \
--cc=david.vrabel@citrix.com \
--cc=jbeulich@suse.com \
--cc=jonathan.creekmore@gmail.com \
--cc=keir@xen.org \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.