Re: [PATCH 20/24] XSM: fold xsm_{,un}map_domain_pirq() hooks

["Daniel P. Smith" <dpsmith@apertussolutions.com>]

On 8/6/26 3:36 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 06.08.2026 03:10, Daniel P. Smith wrote:
>> On 7/28/26 9:23 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> --- a/xen/xsm/flask/hooks.c
>>> +++ b/xen/xsm/flask/hooks.c
>>> @@ -1022,14 +1022,9 @@ static char *cf_check flask_show_irq_sid
>>>    
>>>    #ifdef CONFIG_HAS_PIRQ
>>>    
>>> -static int cf_check flask_map_domain_pirq(struct domain *d)
>>> +static int cf_check flask_map_domain_pirq(struct domain *d, bool access)
>>>    {
>>> -    return current_has_perm(d, SECCLASS_RESOURCE, RESOURCE__ADD);
>>> -}
>>> -
>>> -static int cf_check flask_unmap_domain_pirq(struct domain *d)
>>> -{
>>> -    return current_has_perm(d, SECCLASS_RESOURCE, RESOURCE__REMOVE);
>>> +    return current_has_perm(d, SECCLASS_RESOURCE, resource_to_perm(access));
>>>    }
>>>    
>>>    #endif /* CONFIG_HAS_PIRQ */
>>>
>>
>> I am not opposed to collapsing the calls as long as the semantic is not
>> lost, which I feel the reuse of the xsm_map_domain_pirq does looses it
>> much less provides an opportunity for confusion. Something like
>> xsm_domain_pirq(..., access) makes more semantic sense to me, as it
>> would read, grant domain pirq access T/F.
> 
> In fact I was as well wondering about naming (and a possible name change)
> here. I decided against it because of the other hooks (touched by patch
> 19), which all follow a similar model of their names really more expressing
> the "positive" form than the "negative" one. Further, entirely losing "map"
> from the name also doesn't look quite right, as physdev_{,un}map_pirq() is
> where they're called from. To follow the naming of some of the other hook,
> maybe xsm_domain_pirq_mapping(..., bool map)? Possibly even with "domain"
> dropped from the name, fully fitting xsm_io{mem,port}_mapping()? Which
> would then further raise the question whether patch 19 should maybe rename
> the parameters of those two hooks to "map" at the same time.
> 

Sound like you and I were running through the same argument with 
ourselves, except you went right and I went left.

For me, I find the false case of xsm_map_domain_pirq(..., access) reads 
a bit weird, "Can the target map domain pirq access=false?" I do like 
your mapping suggestion along with the parameter rename to map. It 
changes the reading to "Is target allowed map(true)/unmap(false) for the 
domain pirq mapping?" This could be carried through to the other cases.

v/r,
dps