[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 1/8] public / x86: Introduce __HYPERCALL_dm_op...
> -----Original Message----- > From: Jan Beulich [mailto:JBeulich@xxxxxxxx] > Sent: 15 December 2016 15:23 > To: Paul Durrant <Paul.Durrant@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Andrew Cooper <Andrew.Cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>; Ian Jackson > <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxx>; Jennifer Herbert <jennifer.herbert@xxxxxxxxxx>; > Wei Liu <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx>; xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Daniel De > Graaf <dgdegra@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/8] public / x86: Introduce __HYPERCALL_dm_op... > > >>> On 06.12.16 at 14:46, <paul.durrant@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > ...as a set of hypercalls to be used by a device model. > > > > As stated in the new docs/designs/dm_op.markdown: > > > > "The aim of DMOP is to prevent a compromised device model from > > compromising domains other then the one it is associated with. (And is > > therefore likely already compromised)." > > > > See that file for further information. > > > > This patch simply adds the boilerplate for the hypercall. > > > > Signed-off-by: Paul Durrant <paul.durrant@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Suggested-by: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Suggested-by: Jennifer Herbert <jennifer.herbert@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Hypervisor parts > Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx> > albeit with one more question/adjustment request: > > > +struct xen_dm_op_buf { > > + XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(void) h; > > + uint64_aligned_t size; > > Does size need to be 64 bits wide? I thing 32 should suffice, even if > that won't shrink structure size (because the handle really wants to > be XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_64() for a tool stack-only interface which > we don't want to have a compat wrapper for). Sure. I don't think it does need to be that wide in reality. Paul > > Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |