Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v10 00/12] Implement the XEN_DOMCTL_memory_mapping hypercall for ARM

[Andrii Tseglytskyi <andrii.tseglytskyi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 9:36 PM, Arianna Avanzini
<avanzini.arianna@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 22/08/2014 20:27, Andrii Tseglytskyi wrote:
>> Hi Arianna,
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 5:25 PM, Arianna Avanzini
>> <avanzini.arianna@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On 21/08/2014 17:43, Andrii Tseglytskyi wrote:
>>>> Hi Arianna,
>>>>
>>>> Just one more question - how iomem mapping will be handled by XSM 
>>>> framework?
>>>> I'm using older revision of your patch series and I need to do the
>>>> following change to permit domU working with already mapped iomem,
>>>> (only if XSM is enabled and FLASK is enforsed)
>>>>
>>>> commit 3f35dae860bd0f566ca156608ec53e3240aacd5a
>>>> Author: Andrii Tseglytskyi <andrii.tseglytskyi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Date:   Thu Aug 21 18:00:20 2014 +0300
>>>>
>>>>     xsm: arm: allow domU to use iomem
>>>>
>>>>     Change-Id: I7eff12b127e0d32d97a67e77dbcca3a8326dfd22
>>>>     Signed-off-by: Andrii Tseglytskyi <andrii.tseglytskyi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/tools/flask/policy/policy/modules/xen/xen.te
>>>> b/tools/flask/policy/policy/modules/xen/xen.te
>>>> index d7147fb..ac4a01d 100644
>>>> --- a/tools/flask/policy/policy/modules/xen/xen.te
>>>> +++ b/tools/flask/policy/policy/modules/xen/xen.te
>>>> @@ -108,6 +108,7 @@ admin_device(dom0_t, device_t)
>>>>  admin_device(dom0_t, irq_t)
>>>>  admin_device(dom0_t, ioport_t)
>>>>  admin_device(dom0_t, iomem_t)
>>>> +admin_device(domU_t, iomem_t)
>>>>
>>>>  domain_comms(dom0_t, dom0_t)
>>>>
>>>> Is this a point, or I missed something ?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think this is a point, if I understood things well. Do you prefer to 
>>> submit
>>> your patch personally if/after the memory_mapping patchset is eventually 
>>> merged,
>>> or do you prefer that I send your patch with the memory_mapping patchset?
>>>
>>
>> It would be great if you include this patch to your patch series, keep
>> my authority and add your sign-off-by.
>> Do you agree?
>>
>
> Of course, but I think my signed-off-by in this case is not appropriate nor
> required.
> I'll add it to the upcoming v11 with your signed-off-by and your authority, if
> it's OK for you. I proposed you to merge it with the memory_mapping patchset
> just because I think it might be simpler to review it this way.
>

Sure. Completely agree. Let's proceed in this way.

Thank you,

Regards,
Andrii

> Thank you,
> Arianna
>
>
>
> --
> /*
>  * Arianna Avanzini
>  * avanzini.arianna@xxxxxxxxx
>  * 73628@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>  */



-- 

Andrii Tseglytskyi | Embedded Dev
GlobalLogic
www.globallogic.com

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel