On 31.05.2022 18:15, Daniel P. Smith wrote: > > On 5/31/22 11:51, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 31.05.2022 17:08, Daniel P. Smith wrote: >>> It is possible to select a few different build configurations that results >>> in >>> the unnecessary walking of the boot module list looking for a policy module. >>> This specifically occurs when the flask policy is enabled but either the >>> dummy >>> or the SILO policy is selected as the enforcing policy. This is not ideal >>> for >>> configurations like hyperlaunch and dom0less when there could be a number of >>> modules to be walked or doing an unnecessary device tree lookup. >>> >>> This patch introduces the policy_file_required flag for tracking when an XSM >>> policy module requires a policy file. Only when the policy_file_required >>> flag >>> is set to true, will XSM search the boot modules for a policy file. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Daniel P. Smith <[email protected]> >> >> Looks technically okay, so >> Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <[email protected]> >> but couldn't you ... >> >>> @@ -148,7 +160,7 @@ int __init xsm_multiboot_init( >>> >>> printk("XSM Framework v" XSM_FRAMEWORK_VERSION " initialized\n"); >>> >>> - if ( XSM_MAGIC ) >>> + if ( policy_file_required && XSM_MAGIC ) >>> { >>> ret = xsm_multiboot_policy_init(module_map, mbi, &policy_buffer, >>> &policy_size); >>> @@ -176,7 +188,7 @@ int __init xsm_dt_init(void) >>> >>> printk("XSM Framework v" XSM_FRAMEWORK_VERSION " initialized\n"); >>> >>> - if ( XSM_MAGIC ) >>> + if ( policy_file_required && XSM_MAGIC ) >>> { >>> ret = xsm_dt_policy_init(&policy_buffer, &policy_size); >>> if ( ret ) >> >> ... drop the two "&& XSM_MAGIC" here at this time? Afaict >> policy_file_required >> cannot be true when XSM_MAGIC is zero. > > I was on the fence about this, as it should be rendered as redundant as > you point out. I am good with dropping on next spin.
I'd also be okay dropping this while committing, unless a v4 appears first ... Jan
