| Message ID | 20231109174034.375392-1-thuth@redhat.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | include/hw/xen: Use more inclusive language in comment | expand |
On Thu, Nov 09, 2023 at 06:40:34PM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote: > Let's improve the wording here. > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> > --- > include/hw/xen/interface/hvm/params.h | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) Reviewed-by: Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com> With regards, Daniel
On 9/11/23 18:40, Thomas Huth wrote: > Let's improve the wording here. > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> > --- > include/hw/xen/interface/hvm/params.h | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@linaro.org>
On 09/11/2023 5:40 pm, Thomas Huth wrote: > Let's improve the wording here. > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> Thankyou for the patch, but this is a verbatim copy of a set of Xen headers. Would you mind submitting a correction to xen.git:xen/include/public/hvm/params.h first, and then syncing the result back into Qemu? ~Andrew
On Thu, 2023-11-09 at 18:40 +0100, Thomas Huth wrote: > Let's improve the wording here. > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> Absolutely, but please can we change it in Xen first because these headers are a direct import. Acked-by: David Woodhouse <dwmw@amazon.co.uk> > --- > include/hw/xen/interface/hvm/params.h | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/include/hw/xen/interface/hvm/params.h > b/include/hw/xen/interface/hvm/params.h > index a22b4ed45d..9bcb40284c 100644 > --- a/include/hw/xen/interface/hvm/params.h > +++ b/include/hw/xen/interface/hvm/params.h > @@ -255,7 +255,7 @@ > * Note that 'mixed' mode has not been evaluated for safety from a > * security perspective. Before using this mode in a > * security-critical environment, each subop should be evaluated for > - * safety, with unsafe subops blacklisted in XSM. > + * safety, with unsafe subops blocked in XSM. > */ > #define HVM_PARAM_ALTP2M 35 > #define XEN_ALTP2M_disabled 0
On 09.11.2023 18:40, Thomas Huth wrote: > --- a/include/hw/xen/interface/hvm/params.h > +++ b/include/hw/xen/interface/hvm/params.h > @@ -255,7 +255,7 @@ > * Note that 'mixed' mode has not been evaluated for safety from a > * security perspective. Before using this mode in a > * security-critical environment, each subop should be evaluated for > - * safety, with unsafe subops blacklisted in XSM. > + * safety, with unsafe subops blocked in XSM. To avoid another round trip when you send the patch against xen.git, as already asked for by others, I'd like to point out that the wording change isn't describing things sufficiently similarly: "blocked" reads as if XSM would do so all by itself, whereas "blacklisted" has an indication that something needs to be done for XSM to behave in the intended way. Minimally I'd suggest "suitably blocked via", but perhaps yet better wording can be thought of. Jan PS: Personally I'm against such avoiding of certain words. Them being misused is not really a justification. New wording (perhaps not specifically here, but considering the underlying wider theme) is going to be misused as well, leading to the need to come up with yet different wording, and so on.
On 10/11/2023 10.30, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 09.11.2023 18:40, Thomas Huth wrote: >> --- a/include/hw/xen/interface/hvm/params.h >> +++ b/include/hw/xen/interface/hvm/params.h >> @@ -255,7 +255,7 @@ >> * Note that 'mixed' mode has not been evaluated for safety from a >> * security perspective. Before using this mode in a >> * security-critical environment, each subop should be evaluated for >> - * safety, with unsafe subops blacklisted in XSM. >> + * safety, with unsafe subops blocked in XSM. > > To avoid another round trip when you send the patch against xen.git, as > already asked for by others, I'd like to point out that the wording > change isn't describing things sufficiently similarly: "blocked" reads > as if XSM would do so all by itself, whereas "blacklisted" has an > indication that something needs to be done for XSM to behave in the > intended way. Minimally I'd suggest "suitably blocked via", but perhaps > yet better wording can be thought of. Ok, could then please someone from you Xen guys get this fixed with appropriate wording in the xen.git repo? I never checked out that repo before and before I now spend hours and hours to figure out how to contribute a patch to Xen, just to replace a single word, it's way easier if someone with pre-existing Xen experience is taking care of this. Thanks, Thomas
On Fri, 2023-11-10 at 10:30 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 09.11.2023 18:40, Thomas Huth wrote: > > --- a/include/hw/xen/interface/hvm/params.h > > +++ b/include/hw/xen/interface/hvm/params.h > > @@ -255,7 +255,7 @@ > > * Note that 'mixed' mode has not been evaluated for safety from a > > * security perspective. Before using this mode in a > > * security-critical environment, each subop should be evaluated for > > - * safety, with unsafe subops blacklisted in XSM. > > + * safety, with unsafe subops blocked in XSM. > > To avoid another round trip when you send the patch against xen.git, as > already asked for by others, I'd like to point out that the wording > change isn't describing things sufficiently similarly: "blocked" reads > as if XSM would do so all by itself, whereas "blacklisted" has an > indication that something needs to be done for XSM to behave in the > intended way. Minimally I'd suggest "suitably blocked via", but perhaps > yet better wording can be thought of. "denylist" is often used and works as a suitable replacement in most use cases.
diff --git a/include/hw/xen/interface/hvm/params.h b/include/hw/xen/interface/hvm/params.h index a22b4ed45d..9bcb40284c 100644 --- a/include/hw/xen/interface/hvm/params.h +++ b/include/hw/xen/interface/hvm/params.h @@ -255,7 +255,7 @@ * Note that 'mixed' mode has not been evaluated for safety from a * security perspective. Before using this mode in a * security-critical environment, each subop should be evaluated for - * safety, with unsafe subops blacklisted in XSM. + * safety, with unsafe subops blocked in XSM. */ #define HVM_PARAM_ALTP2M 35 #define XEN_ALTP2M_disabled 0
Let's improve the wording here. Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> --- include/hw/xen/interface/hvm/params.h | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)