On 05/06/2023 11:10 am, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 05.06.2023 12:05, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> Insecure the word being looked for here. Especially given the nature of the
> Nit: Missing "is"?
Oops yes.
>
>> sole caller, and the (correct) comment next to it.
>>
>> I've left the taint constant as 'U' as it's a rather more user-visible.
>>
>> Fixes: 82c0d3d491cc ("xen: Add an unsecure Taint type")
>> Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com>
> Acked-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
Thanks, although I've got one extra hunk to add having just done the
other half of the taint work.
diff --git a/xen/common/kernel.c b/xen/common/kernel.c
index 14ce6b40ce06..ff67f00e41bb 100644
--- a/xen/common/kernel.c
+++ b/xen/common/kernel.c
@@ -344,7 +344,7 @@ unsigned int tainted;
* 'E' - An error (e.g. a machine check exceptions) has been injected.
* 'H' - HVM forced emulation prefix is permitted.
* 'M' - Machine had a machine check experience.
- * 'U' - Platform is unsecure (usually due to an errata on the platform).
+ * 'U' - Platform is insecure (usually due to an errata on the platform).
* 'S' - Out of spec CPU (One core has a feature incompatible with
others).
*
* The string is overwritten by the next call to print_taint().
>> I'm happy to change 'U' to 'I' if we think that no-one is going to be
>> impacted
>> by it. I just wasn't sure.
> I agree with what you have done, i.e. leaving it as is.
Yeah, I assumed that was going to be the preferred route.
~Andrew
