On Tue, 30 Aug 2016, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Jan Beulich writes ("Re: Device model operation hypercall (DMOP, re qemu
> depriv)"):
> > Well, in a way. And then not: Initially I had thought no issue would
> > arise, until I came to realize the kernel memory corruption potential.
> > Question is whether now we're overlooking some other not
> > immediately obvious issue. The problem with auditing is that
> > generally you can only look for things you're aware of (or magically
> > become aware of while looking at the code). But I guess we should
> > just go ahead with the patterns we know of.
>
> I think so, yes. I will take a look at the interfaces, at least, to
> see if I can spot anything missing. This will probably generate some
> more stupid questions...
>
> So, then, is everyone now happy with the overall approach ? That is,
> as I wrote up in:
> Message-ID: <22464.10246.708893.563...@mariner.uk.xensource.com>
> Subject: Re: Device model operation hypercall (DMOP, re qemu depriv)
> Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2016 12:29:10 +0100
I think it looks good
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
