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
