On 14.02.2022 13:56, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
> @@ -88,7 +88,7 @@ unsigned int opt_hvm_debug_level __read_mostly;
> integer_param("hvm_debug", opt_hvm_debug_level);
> #endif
>
> -struct hvm_function_table hvm_funcs __read_mostly;
> +struct hvm_function_table __ro_after_init hvm_funcs;
Strictly speaking this is an unrelated change. I'm fine with it living here,
but half a sentence would be nice in the description.
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/svm/svm.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/svm/svm.c
> @@ -2513,7 +2513,7 @@ static void cf_check svm_set_reg(struct vcpu *v,
> unsigned int reg, uint64_t val)
> }
> }
>
> -static struct hvm_function_table __initdata svm_function_table = {
> +static struct hvm_function_table __initdata_cf_clobber svm_function_table = {
> .name = "SVM",
> .cpu_up_prepare = svm_cpu_up_prepare,
> .cpu_dead = svm_cpu_dead,
> diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c
> index 41db538a9e3d..758df3321884 100644
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c
> @@ -2473,7 +2473,7 @@ static void cf_check vmx_set_reg(struct vcpu *v,
> unsigned int reg, uint64_t val)
> vmx_vmcs_exit(v);
> }
>
> -static struct hvm_function_table __initdata vmx_function_table = {
> +static struct hvm_function_table __initdata_cf_clobber vmx_function_table = {
> .name = "VMX",
> .cpu_up_prepare = vmx_cpu_up_prepare,
> .cpu_dead = vmx_cpu_dead,
While I'd like to re-raise my concern regarding the non-pointer fields
in these structure instances (just consider a sequence of enough bool
bitfields, which effectively can express any value, including ones
which would appear like pointers into .text), since for now all is okay
afaict:
Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
Jan
