From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Yu, Zhang" Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] tools: introduce parameter max_wp_ram_ranges. Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2016 00:37:14 +0800 Message-ID: <56AF89BA.4060105@linux.intel.com> References: <1454064314-7799-1-git-send-email-yu.c.zhang@linux.intel.com> <1454064314-7799-4-git-send-email-yu.c.zhang@linux.intel.com> <56ABA26C02000078000CC7CD@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> <56ACCAD5.8030503@linux.intel.com> <56AF1CE302000078000CCBBD@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> <20160201120244.GT25660@citrix.com> <56AF5A6402000078000CCEB2@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> <20160201124959.GX25660@citrix.com> <56AF669F02000078000CCF8D@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> <56AF7657.1000200@linux.intel.com> <56AF85A3.6010803@linux.intel.com> <56AF977602000078000CD1BE@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <56AF977602000078000CD1BE@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Jan Beulich Cc: kevin.tian@intel.com, wei.liu2@citrix.com, ian.campbell@citrix.com, stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com, andrew.cooper3@citrix.com, ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com, xen-devel@lists.xen.org, Paul.Durrant@citrix.com, zhiyuan.lv@intel.com, keir@xen.org List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 2/2/2016 12:35 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 01.02.16 at 17:19, wrote: >> After a second thought, I guess one of the security concern >> is when some APP is trying to trigger the HVMOP_set_param >> directly with some illegal values. > > Not sure what "directly" is supposed to mean here. > I mean with no validation by itself, like libxc... >> So, we need also validate this param in hvm_allow_set_param, >> current although hvm_allow_set_param has not performed any >> validation other parameters. We need to do this for the new >> ones. Is this understanding correct? > > Yes. > >> Another question is: as to the tool stack side, do you think >> an error message would suffice? Shouldn't xl be terminated? > > I have no idea what consistent behavior in such a case would > be - I'll defer input on this to the tool stack maintainers. > Thank you. Wei, which one do you prefer? Yu