From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@eu.citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] domctl: fix IRQ permission
	granting/revocation
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 10:12:15 +0000
Message-ID: <1418206335.19809.49.camel@eu.citrix.com>
References: <54880D6B020000780004E6AA@mail.emea.novell.com>
	<1418205196.19809.34.camel@eu.citrix.com>
	<548827E5020000780004E780@mail.emea.novell.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
Received: from mail6.bemta5.messagelabs.com ([195.245.231.135])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>) id 1XyeFo-0005mu-Sl
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 10:12:21 +0000
In-Reply-To: <548827E5020000780004E780@mail.emea.novell.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>, Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org>, Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On Wed, 2014-12-10 at 10:00 +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 10.12.14 at 10:53, <Ian.Campbell@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2014-12-10 at 08:07 +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> Commit 545607eb3c ("x86: fix various issues with handling guest IRQs")
> >> wasn't really consistent in one respect: The granting of access to an
> >> IRQ shouldn't assume the pIRQ->IRQ translation to be the same in both
> >> domains. In fact it is wrong to assume that a translation is already/
> >> still in place at the time access is being granted/revoked.
> > 
> > Specifically you need to do the translation using the mapping of the
> > domain doing the granting, not the domain being granted too, correct?
> > 
> > It takes a little bit of thought to figure out which domain to check
> > here, it would be worth a sentence or two explaining why this is the
> > right one.
> 
> Would
> 
> "What is wanted is to translate the incoming pIRQ to an IRQ for
>  the invoking domain (as the pIRQ is the only notion the invoking
>  domain has of the IRQ), and grant the subject domain access to
>  the resulting IRQ."
> 
> make this more clear without being purely redundant with the code?

Yes, thanks.

Ian.