Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86/altp2m: Add a hvmop for setting the suppress #VE bit

[Adrian Pop <apop@bitdefender.com>]

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 01:01:36PM -0600, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Adrian Pop <apop@bitdefender.com> wrote:
> > diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/mm/mem_access.c b/xen/arch/x86/mm/mem_access.c
> > index d0b0767855..8c39db13e3 100644
> > --- a/xen/arch/x86/mm/mem_access.c
> > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm/mem_access.c
> > @@ -466,6 +466,58 @@ int p2m_get_mem_access(struct domain *d, gfn_t gfn, xenmem_access_t *access)
> >  }
> >
> >  /*
> > + * Set/clear the #VE suppress bit for a page.  Only available on VMX.
> > + */
> > +int p2m_set_suppress_ve(struct domain *d, gfn_t gfn, bool suppress_ve,
> > +                        unsigned int altp2m_idx)
> > +{
> > +    struct p2m_domain *host_p2m = p2m_get_hostp2m(d);
> > +    struct p2m_domain *ap2m = NULL;
> > +    struct p2m_domain *p2m;
> > +    mfn_t mfn;
> > +    p2m_access_t a;
> > +    p2m_type_t t;
> > +    int rc;
> > +
> > +    if ( !cpu_has_vmx_virt_exceptions )
> > +        return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > +
> > +    /* This subop should only be used from a privileged domain. */
> > +    if ( !current->domain->is_privileged )
> > +        return -EINVAL;
> 
> This check looks wrong to me. If this subop should only be used by an
> external (privileged) domain then I don't think this should be
> implemented as an HVMOP, looks more like a domctl to me.

AFAICS this could indeed be implemented as a domctl as well.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel