From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Keir Fraser <keir.xen@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86-64: revert mmconfig part of c/s
 24425:053a44894279
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 17:26:48 +0100
Message-ID: <CC0909D8.363BB%keir.xen@gmail.com>
References: <4FE359F6020000780008B299@nat28.tlf.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>
In-Reply-To: <4FE359F6020000780008B299@nat28.tlf.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>, xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
Cc: dgdegra@tycho.nsa.gov
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 21/06/2012 16:29, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:

> These additions did not fulfill their purpose - they checked hypervisor
> config space accesses instead of guest (Dom0) ones.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>

Acked-by: Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>

> --- a/xen/arch/x86/x86_64/mmconfig_64.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/x86_64/mmconfig_64.c
> @@ -14,7 +14,6 @@
>  #include <xen/xmalloc.h>
>  #include <xen/pci.h>
>  #include <xen/pci_regs.h>
> -#include <xsm/xsm.h>
>  
>  #include "mmconfig.h"
>  
> @@ -59,7 +58,6 @@ int pci_mmcfg_read(unsigned int seg, uns
>                unsigned int devfn, int reg, int len, u32 *value)
>  {
>      char __iomem *addr;
> -    uint32_t mbdf;
>  
>      /* Why do we have this when nobody checks it. How about a BUG()!? -AK */
>      if (unlikely((bus > 255) || (devfn > 255) || (reg > 4095))) {
> @@ -67,12 +65,6 @@ err:        *value = -1;
>          return -EINVAL;
>      }
>  
> -    mbdf = (seg << 16) | (bus << 8) | devfn;
> -    if (xsm_pci_config_permission(current->domain, mbdf, reg, reg + len - 1,
> 0)) {
> -        *value = -1;
> -        return -EPERM;
> -    }
> -
>      addr = pci_dev_base(seg, bus, devfn);
>      if (!addr)
>          goto err;
> @@ -96,16 +88,11 @@ int pci_mmcfg_write(unsigned int seg, un
>                 unsigned int devfn, int reg, int len, u32 value)
>  {
>      char __iomem *addr;
> -    uint32_t mbdf;
>  
>      /* Why do we have this when nobody checks it. How about a BUG()!? -AK */
>      if (unlikely((bus > 255) || (devfn > 255) || (reg > 4095)))
>          return -EINVAL;
>  
> -    mbdf = (seg << 16) | (bus << 8) | devfn;
> -    if (xsm_pci_config_permission(current->domain, mbdf, reg, reg + len - 1,
> 1))
> -        return -EPERM;
> -
>      addr = pci_dev_base(seg, bus, devfn);
>      if (!addr)
>          return -EINVAL;
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
> http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel