Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/3] arm/arm64/xen: use C inlines for privcmd_call

[Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 10:10 AM Andrew Cooper
<andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 29/11/2019 15:05, Julien Grall wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 27/11/2019 18:44, Pavel Tatashin wrote:
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/xen/hypercall.h
> >> b/arch/arm64/include/asm/xen/hypercall.h
> >> index 3522cbaed316..1a74fb28607f 100644
> >> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/xen/hypercall.h
> >> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/xen/hypercall.h
> >> @@ -1 +1,29 @@
> >> +#ifndef _ASM_ARM64_XEN_HYPERCALL_H
> >> +#define _ASM_ARM64_XEN_HYPERCALL_H
> >>   #include <xen/arm/hypercall.h>
> >> +#include <linux/uaccess.h>
> >> +
> >> +static inline long privcmd_call(unsigned int call, unsigned long a1,
> >> +                unsigned long a2, unsigned long a3,
> >> +                unsigned long a4, unsigned long a5)
> >
> > I realize that privcmd_call is the only hypercall using Software PAN
> > at the moment. However, dm_op needs the same as hypercall will be
> > issued from userspace as well.
>
> And dm_op() won't be the only example as we continue in cleaning up the
> gaping hole that is privcmd.
>
> > So I was wondering whether we should create a generic function (e.g.
> > do_xen_hypercall() or do_xen_user_hypercall()) to cover the two
> > hypercalls?
>
> Probably a good idea.

It sounds good to me, but let's keep it outside of this series.

Thank you,
Pasha

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel