From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arianna Avanzini Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 00/12] Implement the XEN_DOMCTL_memory_mapping hypercall for ARM Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 20:36:30 +0200 Message-ID: <53F78DAE.9070605@gmail.com> References: <1406585529-32193-1-git-send-email-avanzini.arianna@gmail.com> <53F4EE02.9040500@gmail.com> <53F752D3.7090609@gmail.com> Reply-To: Arianna Avanzini Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Andrii Tseglytskyi Cc: Julien Grall , paolo.valente@unimore.it, Keir Fraser , Stefano Stabellini , Tim Deegan , Dario Faggioli , Ian Jackson , "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" , Ian Campbell , etrudeau@broadcom.com, Jan Beulich , Andrew Cooper , Viktor Kleinik List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 22/08/2014 20:27, Andrii Tseglytskyi wrote: > Hi Arianna, > > On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 5:25 PM, Arianna Avanzini > wrote: >> On 21/08/2014 17:43, Andrii Tseglytskyi wrote: >>> Hi Arianna, >>> >>> Just one more question - how iomem mapping will be handled by XSM framework? >>> I'm using older revision of your patch series and I need to do the >>> following change to permit domU working with already mapped iomem, >>> (only if XSM is enabled and FLASK is enforsed) >>> >>> commit 3f35dae860bd0f566ca156608ec53e3240aacd5a >>> Author: Andrii Tseglytskyi >>> Date: Thu Aug 21 18:00:20 2014 +0300 >>> >>> xsm: arm: allow domU to use iomem >>> >>> Change-Id: I7eff12b127e0d32d97a67e77dbcca3a8326dfd22 >>> Signed-off-by: Andrii Tseglytskyi >>> >>> diff --git a/tools/flask/policy/policy/modules/xen/xen.te >>> b/tools/flask/policy/policy/modules/xen/xen.te >>> index d7147fb..ac4a01d 100644 >>> --- a/tools/flask/policy/policy/modules/xen/xen.te >>> +++ b/tools/flask/policy/policy/modules/xen/xen.te >>> @@ -108,6 +108,7 @@ admin_device(dom0_t, device_t) >>> admin_device(dom0_t, irq_t) >>> admin_device(dom0_t, ioport_t) >>> admin_device(dom0_t, iomem_t) >>> +admin_device(domU_t, iomem_t) >>> >>> domain_comms(dom0_t, dom0_t) >>> >>> Is this a point, or I missed something ? >>> >> >> I think this is a point, if I understood things well. Do you prefer to submit >> your patch personally if/after the memory_mapping patchset is eventually merged, >> or do you prefer that I send your patch with the memory_mapping patchset? >> > > It would be great if you include this patch to your patch series, keep > my authority and add your sign-off-by. > Do you agree? > Of course, but I think my signed-off-by in this case is not appropriate nor required. I'll add it to the upcoming v11 with your signed-off-by and your authority, if it's OK for you. I proposed you to merge it with the memory_mapping patchset just because I think it might be simpler to review it this way. Thank you, Arianna -- /* * Arianna Avanzini * avanzini.arianna@gmail.com * 73628@studenti.unimore.it */