Re: [PATCH 00/21] x86: Trenchboot Secure Launch DRTM (Xen)

[Sergii Dmytruk <sergii.dmytruk@3mdeb.com>]

On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 12:54:41PM +0200, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
>
> On 4/23/25 23:53, Sergii Dmytruk wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 10:11:35PM +0200, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
> > > On 2025-04-23 20:45, Sergii Dmytruk wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 02:38:37PM +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> > > > > On 22/04/2025 6:14 pm, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> > > > > > I've stripped out the sha2 patch and fixed up to use the existing sha2,
> > > > > > then kicked off some CI testing:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://gitlab.com/xen-project/hardware/xen-staging/-/pipelines/1780285393
> > > > > > https://cirrus-ci.com/build/5452335868018688
> > > > > >
> > > > > > When the dust has settled, I'll talk you through the failures.
> > > > > And here we go.  Interestingly, the FreeBSD testing was entirely
> > > > > happy,
> > > > > and that is the rare way around.
> > > > >
> > > > > For Gitlab, there are several areas.
> > > > >
> > > > > First, for MISRA.  In the job logs, you want the "Browse current
> > > > > reports:" link which will give you full details, but it's all pretty
> > > > > simple stuff.
> > > > Thanks, but that link gives me a list of 5096 failures all over the code
> > > > base.  Is there any way to see a diff against master?
> > > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > yes, you can define selections of violations introduced on previously clean
> > > guidelines by clicking on the "ECLAIR" button on the upper right. See [1]
> > > which is the result of defining the "clean_added" selection shown in the
> > > attached screenshot. If you have other questions please let me know.
> > Hi,
> >
> > not sure why, but using "added" left 4861 violations.  Picking `_NO_TAG`
> > instead seemingly left only new violations.  Maybe that's something
> > specific to this particular run.  Either way, I can go through the list
> > now and know how to adjust it.  Thank you for the instructions.
> >
> I'm not sure I fully understand this. This is what I see on x86: the ones
> still shown are those rules where the CI is blocking and new issues have
> been introduced by that pipeline run (of course a different pipeline may
> yield different results). Only new violations are blocking, so that is why I
> filtered out the rest in this case.

My bad, I still had "Hide" instead of "Show" in the selection.  Other
comboboxes are also hard to see but I wasn't even looking for one in
the title.  Thanks again.

> > > Thanks,
> > >   Nicola
> > >
> > > [1] https://saas.eclairit.com:3787/fs/var/local/eclair/xen-project.ecdf/xen-project/hardware/xen-staging/ECLAIR_normal/andrew/tb-v1.1/ARM64/9791028027/PROJECT.ecd;/by_service.html#service&kind{"select":true,"selection":{"hiddenAreaKinds":[],"hiddenSubareaKinds":[],"show":true,"selector":{"enabled":true,"negated":false,"kind":1,"children":[{"enabled":true,"negated":false,"kind":0,"domain":"clean","inputs":[{"enabled":true,"text":"added"}]}]}}}