Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2] xsm: add device tree labeling support

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 12.03.15 at 21:42, <dgdegra@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> @@ -1999,11 +2055,23 @@ int policydb_read(struct policydb *p, void *fp)
>                          "Old xen policy does not support iomemcon");
>                      goto bad;
>                  }
> -                rc = next_entry(buf, fp, sizeof(u32) *2);
> -                if ( rc < 0 )
> -                    goto bad;
> -                c->u.iomem.low_iomem = le32_to_cpu(buf[0]);
> -                c->u.iomem.high_iomem = le32_to_cpu(buf[1]);
> +                if ( p->policyvers >= POLICYDB_VERSION_XEN_DEVICETREE )
> +                {
> +                    u64 b64[2];
> +                    rc = next_entry(b64, fp, sizeof(u64) *2);
> +                    if ( rc < 0 )
> +                        goto bad;
> +                    c->u.iomem.low_iomem = le64_to_cpu(b64[0]);
> +                    c->u.iomem.high_iomem = le64_to_cpu(b64[1]);
> +                }
> +                else
> +                {
> +                    rc = next_entry(buf, fp, sizeof(u32) *2);
> +                    if ( rc < 0 )
> +                        goto bad;
> +                    c->u.iomem.low_iomem = le32_to_cpu(buf[0]);
> +                    c->u.iomem.high_iomem = le32_to_cpu(buf[1]);
> +                }

I might be completely wrong (knowing next to nothing about XSM),
but how is the permissible I/O mem range tied to DT (as expressed
by POLICYDB_VERSION_XEN_DEVICETREE)? All systems with
valid page frame number possibly being wider than 32 bits would
need this extension, i.e. namely also x86.

Jan


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