Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] tools: introduce parameter max_wp_ram_ranges.

["Yu, Zhang" <yu.c.zhang@linux.intel.com>]

On 2/2/2016 6:32 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 01.02.16 at 18:05, <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
>> Having said that, if the hypervisor maintainers are happy with a
>> situation where this value is configured explicitly, and the
>> configurations where a non-default value is required is expected to be
>> rare, then I guess we can live with it.
>
> Well, from the very beginning I have been not very happy with
> the introduction of this, and I still consider it half way acceptable
> only because of not seeing any good alternative. If we look at
> it strictly, it's in violation of the rule we set forth after XSA-77:
> No introduction of new code making the system susceptible to
> bad (malicious) tool stack behavior, and hence we should reject
> it. Yet that would leave XenGT in a state where it would have no
> perspective of ever getting merged, which doesn't seem very
> desirable either.
>
> Jan
>

Thanks, Jan.
I understand your concern, and to be honest, I do not think
this is an optimal solution. But I also have no better idea
in mind.  :(
Another option may be: instead of opening this parameter to
the tool stack, we use a XenGT flag, which set the rangeset
limit to a default value. But like I said, this default value
may not always work on future XenGT platforms.


B.R.
Yu