On 03.04.2024 13:50, Daniel P. Smith wrote: > On 4/3/24 02:52, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 03.04.2024 08:16, Jan Beulich wrote: >>> On 02.04.2024 19:06, Andrew Cooper wrote: >>>> Whether to return information about a xen-owned evtchn is a matter of >>>> policy, >>>> and it's not acceptable to short circuit the XSM on the matter. >>> >>> I can certainly accept this as one possible view point. As in so many cases >>> I'm afraid I dislike you putting it as if it was the only possible one. >> >> Further to this: Is there even a way to express the same denial in XSM? >> alloc_unbound_xen_event_channel() doesn't specifically "mark" such a >> channel, and (yes, it could in principle be open-coded in Flask code) >> consumer_is_xen() is private to event_channel.c. I also dare to question >> whether in SILO mode status information like this should be available. > > To build on the previous response: if the natural failure return value > is -EACCESS in response to a domain resource access attempt, then the > probability is extremely high that it should be implemented under a XSM > hook and not hard-coded into the resource logic.
Possibly. But first of all - could you answer the earlier question I raised? Jan
