On Mon, 6 May 2019 12:46:50 +0200 Christian Borntraeger <borntrae...@de.ibm.com> wrote:
> On 06.05.19 12:34, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > On Mon, 6 May 2019 12:18:42 +0200 > > Christian Borntraeger <borntrae...@de.ibm.com> wrote: > >> I think we should not. Those entries might have sematic elements that the > >> guest > >> wants to enforce. I do not think that this will come, but imagine a boot > >> entry > >> that mandates some security wishes (e.g. do only run on non-shared cores). > >> > > > > Can we split the namespace for BOOT_SCRIPT into 'ignore if you don't > > know what that is' and 'fail if you don't know what that is'? I'm > > completely confused how 'optional' those entries are supposed to be... > > Since we do not know if and what future entries will come the current default > of failing seems the best approach. We can then add things to pc-bios when > necessary. That's where I'm coming from: Have some values where unknown entries lead to (desired) failure, and others where unknown entries are simply ignored. That would give us automatic toleration for optional entries.
