On 06/09/18 10:08, Paul Durrant wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Andrew Cooper [mailto:andrew.coop...@citrix.com]
>> Sent: 05 September 2018 19:12
>> To: Xen-devel <xen-de...@lists.xen.org>
>> Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com>; Jan Beulich
>> <jbeul...@suse.com>; Wei Liu <wei.l...@citrix.com>; Roger Pau Monne
>> <roger....@citrix.com>; Paul Durrant <paul.durr...@citrix.com>; Stefano
>> Stabellini <sstabell...@kernel.org>; Julien Grall <julien.gr...@arm.com>
>> Subject: [PATCH 2/5] x86/hvm: Switch hvm_allow_set_param() to use a
>> whitelist
>>
>> There are holes in the HVM_PARAM space, some of which are from
>> deprecated
>> parameters, but toolstack and device models currently has (almost) blanket
> s/has/have
>
>> write access.
>>
>> Rearrange hvm_allow_get_param() to have a whitelist of toolstack-writeable
> s/get/set

Both fixed.

>>      d = rcu_lock_domain_by_any_id(a.domid);
>>      if ( d == NULL )
>>          return -ESRCH;
>> @@ -4209,15 +4228,7 @@ static int hvmop_set_param(
>>      case HVM_PARAM_ACPI_IOPORTS_LOCATION:
>>          rc = pmtimer_change_ioport(d, a.value);
>>          break;
>> -    case HVM_PARAM_MEMORY_EVENT_CR0:
>> -    case HVM_PARAM_MEMORY_EVENT_CR3:
>> -    case HVM_PARAM_MEMORY_EVENT_CR4:
>> -    case HVM_PARAM_MEMORY_EVENT_INT3:
>> -    case HVM_PARAM_MEMORY_EVENT_SINGLE_STEP:
>> -    case HVM_PARAM_MEMORY_EVENT_MSR:
>> -        /* Deprecated */
>> -        rc = -EOPNOTSUPP;
>> -        break;
> Does anything rely on this EOPNOTSUPP vs the EINVAL that would be returned 
> after this patch is applied?

Nothing I can spot, although in searching, I see that
xc_hvm_param_deprecated_check() is a thing.

~Andrew

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Reply via email to