>>> On 18.12.15 at 17:28, <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote:
> On 17/12/15 23:00, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>> diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/mm.c b/xen/arch/x86/mm.c
>> index a7767f8..871aca0 100644
>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/mm.c
>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm.c
>> @@ -3019,6 +3019,25 @@ long do_mmuext_op(
>> break;
>> }
>>
>> + if ( has_hvm_container_domain(d) )
>> + {
>> + switch ( op.cmd )
>> + {
>> + case MMUEXT_PIN_L1_TABLE:
>> + case MMUEXT_PIN_L2_TABLE:
>> + case MMUEXT_PIN_L3_TABLE:
>> + case MMUEXT_PIN_L4_TABLE:
>> + case MMUEXT_UNPIN_TABLE:
>> + if ( is_control_domain(d) )
>> + break;
>
> This needs to be an XSM check, rather than a dom0 check. Consider the
> usecase of a PVH/DMLite domain builder stubdomain.
But wouldn't that be the control domain then? Afaict by making this
an XSM check we'd also permit the hardware domain access to these,
for no reason. In fact we should probably further restrict this to
d != pg_owner.
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
