On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 2:53 AM Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote:
>
> On 18.11.2019 09:38, Alexandru Stefan ISAILA wrote:
> > On 12.11.2019 14:02, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> On 06.11.2019 16:35, Alexandru Stefan ISAILA wrote:
> >>> @@ -2572,17 +2574,36 @@ int p2m_init_altp2m_by_id(struct domain *d,
> >>> unsigned int idx)
> >>> altp2m_list_lock(d);
> >>>
> >>> if ( d->arch.altp2m_eptp[idx] == mfn_x(INVALID_MFN) )
> >>> - rc = p2m_activate_altp2m(d, idx);
> >>> + rc = p2m_activate_altp2m(d, idx, hostp2m->default_access);
> >>>
> >>> altp2m_list_unlock(d);
> >>> return rc;
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> -int p2m_init_next_altp2m(struct domain *d, uint16_t *idx)
> >>> +int p2m_init_next_altp2m(struct domain *d, uint16_t *idx,
> >>> + uint16_t hvmmem_default_access)
> >>> {
> >>> int rc = -EINVAL;
> >>> unsigned int i;
> >>>
> >>> + static const p2m_access_t memaccess[] = {
> >>> +#define ACCESS(ac) [XENMEM_access_##ac] = p2m_access_##ac
> >>> + ACCESS(n),
> >>> + ACCESS(r),
> >>> + ACCESS(w),
> >>> + ACCESS(rw),
> >>> + ACCESS(x),
> >>> + ACCESS(rx),
> >>> + ACCESS(wx),
> >>> + ACCESS(rwx),
> >>> + ACCESS(rx2rw),
> >>> + ACCESS(n2rwx),
> >>> +#undef ACCESS
> >>> + };
> >>> +
> >>> + if ( hvmmem_default_access > XENMEM_access_default )
> >>> + return rc;
> >>> +
> >>> altp2m_list_lock(d);
> >>>
> >>> for ( i = 0; i < MAX_ALTP2M; i++ )
> >>> @@ -2590,7 +2611,7 @@ int p2m_init_next_altp2m(struct domain *d, uint16_t
> >>> *idx)
> >>> if ( d->arch.altp2m_eptp[i] != mfn_x(INVALID_MFN) )
> >>> continue;
> >>>
> >>> - rc = p2m_activate_altp2m(d, i);
> >>> + rc = p2m_activate_altp2m(d, i, memaccess[hvmmem_default_access]);
> >>
> >> Aren't you open-coding xenmem_access_to_p2m_access() here? In
> >> no event should there be two instances of the same static array.
> >
> > I did this because xenmem_access_to_p2m_access() is defined static in
> > x86/mm/mem_access.c. If it's ok to have it defined in mem_access.h then
> > I can go with that and drop this part of the code.
>
> I see no reason why this wouldn't be a reasonable step, allowing to
> avoid code duplication. Looks like the function is even suitably
> named already for making non-static.
Sounds fine to me too.
Thanks,
Tamas
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
