Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] tools: introduce parameter max_wp_ram_ranges.

["Yu, Zhang" <yu.c.zhang@linux.intel.com>]

On 2/2/2016 12:16 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 01.02.16 at 16:14, <yu.c.zhang@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>> But I still do not quite understand. :)
>> If tool stack can guarantee the validity of a parameter,
>> under which circumstances will hypervisor be threatened?
>
> At least in disaggregated environments the hypervisor cannot
> trust the (parts of the) tool stack(s) living outside of Dom0. But
> even without disaggregation in mind it is bad practice to have
> the hypervisor assume the tool stack will only pass sane values.
> Just at the example of the param you're introducing: You don't
> even do the validation in libxc, so any (theoretical) tool stack
> no based on xl/libxl would not be guaranteed to pass a sane
> value. And even if you moved it into libxc, one could still argue
> that there could an even more theoretical tool stack not even
> building on top of libxc.
>
> Jan
>

Great. Thank you very much for your patience to explain.
Just sent out another mail about my understanding a moment ago,
seems I partially get it. :)
My vnc connection is too slow, will change the code tomorrow.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
> http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
>

Yu