Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 03/19] arch/x86: add distinct XSM hooks for map/unmap

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 19.11.12 at 15:53, Daniel De Graaf <dgdegra@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 11/19/2012 03:59 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 16.11.12 at 19:28, Daniel De Graaf <dgdegra@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> -static int flask_irq_permission (struct domain *d, int irq, uint8_t access)
>>> +static int flask_unmap_domain_pirq (struct domain *d, int irq)
>>>  {
>>> -    u32 perm;
>>> -    u32 rsid;
>>> +    u32 sid;
>>>      int rc = -EPERM;
>>>  
>>> -    struct domain_security_struct *ssec, *tsec;
>>> +    struct domain_security_struct *ssec;
>>>      struct avc_audit_data ad;
>>>  
>>> -    rc = domain_has_perm(current->domain, d, SECCLASS_RESOURCE,
>>> -                         resource_to_perm(access));
>>> -
>>> +    rc = domain_has_perm(current->domain, d, SECCLASS_RESOURCE, 
> RESOURCE__REMOVE);
>>>      if ( rc )
>>>          return rc;
>>>  
>>> -    if ( access )
>>> -        perm = RESOURCE__ADD_IRQ;
>>> -    else
>>> -        perm = RESOURCE__REMOVE_IRQ;
>>> -
>>>      ssec = current->domain->ssid;
>>> -    tsec = d->ssid;
>>>  
>>> -    rc = get_irq_sid(irq, &rsid, &ad);
>>> -    if ( rc )
>>> -        return rc;
>>> -
>>> -    rc = avc_has_perm(ssec->sid, rsid, SECCLASS_RESOURCE, perm, &ad);
>>> +    if ( irq >= nr_irqs_gsi ) {
>> 
>> Isn't the use of nr_irqs_gsi x86-specific?
> 
> It's defined in xen/include/xen/irq.h (not in an x86-specific file), so I
> hadn't assumed so. The check here is to avoid needing to allow access to
> the MSI IRQs by number since they are dynamic and therefore meaningless in
> a statically-defined policy.

Indeed, there are other uses in common code. We may need to
do something about this for ARM.

Jan


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