Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 00/11] Alternate p2m: support multiple copies of host p2m

[Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 00/11] Alternate p2m: support 
multiple copies of host p2m"):
> On 12.01.15 at 18:36, <edmund.h.white@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Should some version of this patch series be accepted, my hope is that
> > someone who does understand xsm policies would put the appropriate checks
> > in place, and at that point I maintain that these extra capabilities
> > would not be fundamentally more dangerous than existing mechanisms
> > available to privileged domains, because policy can prevent the guest
> > using vmfunc. That's obviously not true today.
> 
> Please simply consult with the XSM maintainer on questions/issues
> like this. Proposing a partial (insecure) patch set isn't appropriate.

I think a better way to phrase this criticism would be to say "please
next time mark your series as RFC and mention in the 00 covering note
the issues which mean that the series should not be applied".

It is definitely appropriate to post RFC patches even if some
important parts are missing.  What is necessary is to explicitly
discuss the problems, so that they don't get overlooked.

Ian.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel