Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/2] x86/altp2m: Add a hvmop for setting the suppress #VE bit

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 15.06.17 at 21:01, <tamas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Adrian Pop <apop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/mm/mem_access.c
>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm/mem_access.c
>> @@ -466,6 +466,58 @@ int p2m_get_mem_access(struct domain *d, gfn_t gfn, 
>> xenmem_access_t *access)
>>  }
>>
>>  /*
>> + * Set/clear the #VE suppress bit for a page.  Only available on VMX.
>> + */
>> +int p2m_set_suppress_ve(struct domain *d, gfn_t gfn, bool suppress_ve,
>> +                        unsigned int altp2m_idx)
>> +{
>> +    struct p2m_domain *host_p2m = p2m_get_hostp2m(d);
>> +    struct p2m_domain *ap2m = NULL;
>> +    struct p2m_domain *p2m;
>> +    mfn_t mfn;
>> +    p2m_access_t a;
>> +    p2m_type_t t;
>> +    int rc;
>> +
>> +    if ( !cpu_has_vmx_virt_exceptions )
>> +        return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>> +
>> +    /* This subop should only be used from a privileged domain. */
>> +    if ( !current->domain->is_privileged )
>> +        return -EINVAL;
> 
> This check looks wrong to me. If this subop should only be used by an
> external (privileged) domain then I don't think this should be
> implemented as an HVMOP, looks more like a domctl to me.

I think this wants to be an XSM_DM_PRIV check instead.

Jan


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