From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: =?windows-1252?Q?Roger_Pau_Monn=E9?= <roger.pau@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] xen/pvh: check permissions when
	adding MMIO regions
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 12:29:06 +0100
Message-ID: <54C23082.4090605@citrix.com>
References: <1421939963-22182-1-git-send-email-roger.pau@citrix.com>
	<1421939963-22182-3-git-send-email-roger.pau@citrix.com>
	<54C128BD0200007800058515@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 <roger.pau@citrix.com>) id 1YEcQI-0002zo-Pc
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 11:29:10 +0000
In-Reply-To: <54C128BD0200007800058515@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: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

El 22/01/15 a les 16.43, Jan Beulich ha escrit:
>>>> On 22.01.15 at 16:19, <roger.pau@citrix.com> wrote:
>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/domain_build.c
>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/domain_build.c
>> @@ -320,11 +320,24 @@ static __init void pvh_add_mem_mapping(struct domain *d, unsigned long gfn,
>>  {
>>      unsigned long i;
>>      p2m_access_t a;
>> +    mfn_t omfn;
>> +    p2m_type_t t;
>>      int rc;
>>  
>> -    a = p2m_get_hostp2m(d)->default_access;
> 
> Iirc this is rwx.
> 
>>      for ( i = 0; i < nr_mfns; i++ )
>>      {
>> +        if ( !iomem_access_permitted(d, mfn + i, mfn + i) )
>> +        {
>> +            omfn = get_gfn_query_unlocked(d, gfn + i, &t);
>> +            guest_physmap_remove_page(d, gfn + i, mfn_x(omfn), PAGE_ORDER_4K);
>> +            continue;
>> +        }
>> +
>> +        if ( rangeset_contains_singleton(mmio_ro_ranges, mfn + i) )
>> +            a = p2m_access_r;
>> +        else
>> +            a = p2m_access_rw;
> 
> Shouldn't these two therefore be rx and rwx respectively? Or even
> better ->default_access in the else case (albeit that doesn't really
> matter here since nothing can have changed that field from its
> default value)? I'm particularly thinking of ROMs that may be sitting
> in these areas.

Yes, it should be rx and rwx. I would prefer to use the explicit types.
IMHO it's easier to understand to which access type it's set (without
having to dig to what value p2m_get_hostp2m(d)->default_access is set).

Roger.