Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 10/24] xen/arm: gic: Add sanity checks gic_route_irq_to_guest

[Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 2015-02-23 at 15:54 +0000, Julien Grall wrote:
> On 23/02/15 15:52, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Mon, 2015-02-23 at 15:47 +0000, Julien Grall wrote:
> >> Hi Ian,
> >>
> >> On 23/02/15 15:20, Ian Campbell wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 2015-02-20 at 17:28 +0000, Julien Grall wrote:
> >>>> The priority is controlled by route_irq_to_guest and set statically
> >>>> using GIC_PRI_IRQ.
> >>>>
> >>>> If we decide to hardcoded the priority here, we should drop the
> >>>> parameter on gic_route_irq_guest. But not keeping both.
> >>>
> >>> There is a middle ground, which is for guest-routed IRQs to be allowed a
> >>> subset of the real priorities, but until those associated checks are in
> >>> place I think hardcoding in gic_route_irq_to_guest leaves less scope for
> >>> mistakes.
> >>
> >> The interface for routing an IRQ to xen (gic_route_irq_to_xen) is taking
> >> the priority in parameter.
> > 
> > It's useful and safe in the route to xen case.
> > 
> >> I would prefer if we keep the same interface for guest and then hardcode
> >> the value in route_irq_to_guest.
> > 
> > In which case I think route_irq_to_guest should complain/error-out if
> > the priority given is not the default one until such a time as it
> > understands which inputs are safe.
> 
> I guess you mean gic_route_irq_to_guest?

Whichever function is ignoring its priority argument in favour of a
hardcoded value.

> I could add a check and error-out for this case.
> 
> Regards,
> 



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