On 07.11.2024 16:08, Daniel P. Smith wrote:
> On 11/7/24 05:05, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 02.11.2024 18:25, Daniel P. Smith wrote:
>>> --- a/xen/xsm/xsm_policy.c
>>> +++ b/xen/xsm/xsm_policy.c
>>> @@ -33,22 +33,18 @@
>>> int __init xsm_multiboot_policy_init(
>>> struct boot_info *bi, void **policy_buffer, size_t *policy_size)
>>> {
>>> - int i;
>>> + unsigned int i;
>>> int rc = 0;
>>> u32 *_policy_start;
>>> unsigned long _policy_len;
>>>
>>> - /*
>>> - * Try all modules and see whichever could be the binary policy.
>>> - * Adjust module_map for the module that is the binary policy.
>>> - */
>>> - for ( i = bi->nr_modules - 1; i >= 1; i-- )
>>> + /* Try all unknown modules and see whichever could be the binary
>>> policy. */
>>> + for_each_boot_module_by_type(i, bi, BOOTMOD_UNKNOWN)
>>> {
>>> - if ( !test_bit(i, bi->module_map) )
>>> - continue;
>>> + struct boot_module *bm = &bi->mods[i];
>>
>> ... same here (and likely elsewhere in the series).
>
> Nope, you can't const this one as that will cause this is at the tail
> end of the loop to fail:
>
> + bm->type = BOOTMOD_XSM_POLICY;
Oh, I had managed to not spot that.
Jan
