From: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>,
"xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org" <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>
Cc: "Roger Pau Monné" <roger.pau@citrix.com>,
"Oleksii Kurochko" <oleksii.kurochko@gmail.com>,
"Chen Jiqian" <Jiqian.Chen@amd.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH for-4.19???] x86/physdev: replace physdev_{,un}map_pirq() checking against DOMID_SELF
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 12:05:49 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <37ccb940-dfcd-419d-8cea-93800fd2c865@citrix.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c7d12669-7851-4701-9b2d-0b22f9d32c1d@suse.com>
On 12/06/2024 9:44 am, Jan Beulich wrote:
> It's hardly ever correct to check for just DOMID_SELF, as guests have
> ways to figure out their domain IDs and hence could instead use those as
> inputs to respective hypercalls. Note, however, that for ordinary DomU-s
> the adjustment is relaxing things rather than tightening them, since
> - as a result of XSA-237 - the respective XSM checks would have rejected
> self (un)mapping attempts for other than the control domain.
>
> Since in physdev_map_pirq() handling overall is a little easier this
> way, move obtaining of the domain pointer into the caller. Doing the
> same for physdev_unmap_pirq() is just to keep both consistent in this
> regard. For both this has the advantage that it is now provable (by the
> build not failing) that there are no DOMID_SELF checks left (and none
> could easily be re-added).
>
> Fixes: 0b469cd68708 ("Interrupt remapping to PIRQs in HVM guests")
> Fixes: 9e1a3415b773 ("x86: fixes after emuirq changes")
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
I think it is right to perform the domid lookup in do_physdev_op() and
pass d down into physdev_{un,}map_pirq().
But I don't see what this has to do with the build failing. You're not
undef-ing DOMID_SELF, so I don't see what kind of provability you've added.
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/physdev.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/physdev.c
> @@ -184,6 +170,8 @@ ret_t do_physdev_op(int cmd, XEN_GUEST_H
>
> switch ( cmd )
> {
> + struct domain *d;
> +
Please don't introduce any more of these.
We've discussed several times about wanting to start using trivial
autovar init support, and every one of these additions is going to need
reverting.
In this case, there's literally no difference having it at function scope.
Furthermore, I recall it being a MISRA violation now too.
~Andrew
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-06-12 11:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-06-12 8:44 [PATCH for-4.19???] x86/physdev: replace physdev_{,un}map_pirq() checking against DOMID_SELF Jan Beulich
2024-06-12 9:33 ` Oleksii K.
2024-06-12 10:52 ` Roger Pau Monné
2024-06-12 11:46 ` Jan Beulich
2024-06-12 11:05 ` Andrew Cooper [this message]
2024-06-12 11:45 ` Jan Beulich
2024-06-12 11:54 ` Andrew Cooper
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=37ccb940-dfcd-419d-8cea-93800fd2c865@citrix.com \
--to=andrew.cooper3@citrix.com \
--cc=Jiqian.Chen@amd.com \
--cc=jbeulich@suse.com \
--cc=oleksii.kurochko@gmail.com \
--cc=roger.pau@citrix.com \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.