[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3] x86/HVM: Merge HVM and PVH hypercall tables

On 12/18/2015 11:37 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 18.12.15 at 17:28, <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 17/12/15 23:00, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/mm.c b/xen/arch/x86/mm.c
index a7767f8..871aca0 100644
--- a/xen/arch/x86/mm.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm.c
@@ -3019,6 +3019,25 @@ long do_mmuext_op(
+ if ( has_hvm_container_domain(d) )
+        {
+            switch ( op.cmd )
+            {
+            case MMUEXT_PIN_L1_TABLE:
+            case MMUEXT_PIN_L2_TABLE:
+            case MMUEXT_PIN_L3_TABLE:
+            case MMUEXT_PIN_L4_TABLE:
+            case MMUEXT_UNPIN_TABLE:
+                if ( is_control_domain(d) )
+                    break;
This needs to be an XSM check, rather than a dom0 check.  Consider the
usecase of a PVH/DMLite domain builder stubdomain.
But wouldn't that be the control domain then? Afaict by making this
an XSM check we'd also permit the hardware domain access to these,
for no reason. In fact we should probably further restrict this to
d != pg_owner.

We already do this at the top of do_mmuext_op():
    rc = xsm_mmuext_op(XSM_TARGET, d, pg_owner);

In fact, there is xsm_memory_pin_page() test under pin_page label so I wonder whether I need any test, including is_control_domain()? (Maybe for the UNPIN).


Xen-devel mailing list



Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.