[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4] x86/mm: Add mem access rights to NPT
>>> On 25.07.18 at 10:29, <aisaila@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > >> > +static void p2m_set_access(struct p2m_domain *p2m, unsigned long >> > gfn, >> > + p2m_access_t a) >> > +{ >> > + int rc; >> > + >> > + if ( !p2m->mem_access_settings ) >> > + return; >> No error indication? > > I would say ASSERT is a better choice if the code got this far and it > could not allocate memory For one ASSERT() is a no-op in release builds. And then it is extremely bad practices to bring down the host when an operation targeting just a single guest has failed. You either return an error indicator here (and pass it up the call tree), or if that's really unfeasible then you crash the affected domain (we do so in quite a few other situations). But you'd need to make clear (if it's not obvious) why passing up an error is unacceptable here. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |