On 14/02/2022 13:10, Jan Beulich wrote:
> 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.
I could split it out, but we could probably make 200 patches of
"sprinkle some __ro_after_init around, now that it exists".
>
>> --- 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>
I should probably put something in the commit message too. It is a
theoretical risk, but not (IMO) a practical one.
~Andrew
