Re: [PATCH v3 28/28] xen/domctl: wrap common/domctl.c with CONFIG_MGMT_HYPERCALLS

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>]

On 18.11.2025 07:43, Penny, Zheng wrote:
> [Public]
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2025 9:40 PM
>> To: Penny, Zheng <penny.zheng@amd.com>
>> Cc: Huang, Ray <Ray.Huang@amd.com>; oleksii.kurochko@gmail.com; Andrew
>> Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>; Anthony PERARD
>> <anthony.perard@vates.tech>; Orzel, Michal <Michal.Orzel@amd.com>; Julien
>> Grall <julien@xen.org>; Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@citrix.com>; Stefano
>> Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org>; xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 28/28] xen/domctl: wrap common/domctl.c with
>> CONFIG_MGMT_HYPERCALLS
>>
>> On 13.10.2025 12:15, Penny Zheng wrote:
>>> --- a/xen/common/Kconfig
>>> +++ b/xen/common/Kconfig
>>> @@ -646,11 +646,13 @@ config SYSTEM_SUSPEND
>>>       If unsure, say N.
>>>
>>>  config MGMT_HYPERCALLS
>>> -   def_bool y
>>> +   bool "Enable privileged hypercalls for system management"
>>>     help
>>>       This option shall only be disabled on some dom0less systems, or
>>>       PV shim on x86, to reduce Xen footprint via managing unnessary
>>> -     hypercalls, like sysctl, etc.
>>> +     hypercalls, like sysctl, domctl, etc.
>>> +     Be cautious to disable it, as users will face missing a few basic
>>> +     hypercalls like listdomains, getdomaininfo, etc.
>>
>> This is still too little, imo. For one I'm not sure "users" is quite the right term. I'd say
>> it's more "admins". And then, as mentioned, there are a few domctl-s which are
>> usable by DMs. Aiui device pass-through may also be impacted, which imo will
>> want mentioning here as well. Or else, if there is an implication that DMs aren't to
>> be used when MGMT_HYPERCALLS=n, that is what would want calling out.
> 
> How about
> "
>         Be cautious to disable it, as admins will face missing a few basic
>         hypercalls like listdomains, getdomaininfo, etc, hence leading to
>         have an impact on xl-device-passthrough and restricted DM.
> "

Much better. However, why "xl-" and why "restricted"? Neither aspect matters
here, unless I overlook something.

> Another question on PV_SHIM_EXCLUSIVE:
> After Stefano's " 6c80f0dd1bb  xen: fix randconfig build problems after introducing SYSCTL " reversion patch, and to avoid incurring randconfig failures till the last, maybe I shall combine all PV_SHIM_EXCLUSIVE-related changes into a new commit and put it in the last, after making MGMT_HYPERCALLS optional again?

Whatever works best.

Jan