On Wed, Aug 07, 2019 at 05:03:46PM +0200, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 04:39:29PM +0100, Anthony PERARD wrote:
> > +BOOLEAN
> > +XenPvhDetected (
> > + VOID
> > + )
> > +{
> > + //
> > + // This function should only be used after XenConnect
> > + //
> > + ASSERT (mXenInfo.VersionMajor != 0);
>
> That's IMO dangerous. Using the version as an indication that
> XenConnect has run seems like a bad idea, since returning a major
> version of 0 is a valid number to return. Can't you check against
> something else that doesn't depends on hypervisor provided data? (ie:
> like some allocations or such that happen in XenConnect)
>
> A paranoid could provider could even return major == 0 and minor == 0
> in order to attempt to hide the Xen version used, since guests are not
> supposed to infer anything from the Xen version, available hypervisor
> features are reported by other means.
I'm sure a paranoid provider wouldn't use a debug build of OVMF :-). So
that assert doesn't matter. There's nothing dangerous in a `nop'! :-D
But I could use mXenInfo.HyperPages instead.
Thanks,
--
Anthony PERARD
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#45156): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/45156
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/32644077/21656
Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io
Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
