[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH V2] x86/hvm: Allow guest_request vm_events coming from userspace
>>> On 08.08.16 at 10:06, <rcojocaru@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Allow guest userspace code to request that a vm_event be sent out > via VMCALL. This functionality seems to be handy for a number of > Xen developers, as stated on the mailing list (thread "[Xen-devel] > HVMOP_guest_request_vm_event only works from guest in ring0"). > > Signed-off-by: Razvan Cojocaru <rcojocaru@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > Changes since V1: > - No longer repeating the check when mode == 8. Technically this looks correct to me now. Albeit I'm still not really convinced we actually want to start making exceptions here. > --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c > @@ -4146,15 +4146,25 @@ int hvm_do_hypercall(struct cpu_user_regs *regs) > switch ( mode ) > { > case 8: > + if ( eax == __HYPERVISOR_hvm_op && > + regs->rdi == HVMOP_guest_request_vm_event ) > + break; > + /* Fallthrough */ > case 4: > + /* Fallthrough */ > case 2: At least this one annotation is pointless, but if we decide to commit the change this can of course be taken care of while committing. > + if ( mode != 8 && eax == __HYPERVISOR_hvm_op && > + regs->_ebx == HVMOP_guest_request_vm_event ) > + break; > hvm_get_segment_register(curr, x86_seg_ss, &sreg); > if ( unlikely(sreg.attr.fields.dpl) ) > { > + /* Fallthrough */ > default: I would hope this annotation to be pointless too, but that would need to be clarified by someone more familiar with Coverity. > regs->eax = -EPERM; > return HVM_HCALL_completed; > } > + /* Fallthrough */ > case 0: This one, otoh, looks like it was indeed missing (and Coverity should have complained). Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |