Re: [PATCH for-4.17?] x86/paging: return -EINVAL for paging domctls for dying domains

[Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Nov 08, 2022 at 05:14:40PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 08.11.2022 12:38, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
> > Like on the Arm side, return -EINVAL when attempting to do a p2m
> > operation on dying domains.
> > 
> > The current logic returns 0 and leaves the domctl parameter
> > uninitialized for any parameter fetching operations (like the
> > GET_ALLOCATION operation), which is not helpful from a toolstack point
> > of view, because there's no indication that the data hasn't been
> > fetched.
> 
> While I can see how the present behavior is problematic when it comes
> to consuming supposedly returned data, ...
> 
> > --- a/xen/arch/x86/mm/paging.c
> > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm/paging.c
> > @@ -694,9 +694,10 @@ int paging_domctl(struct domain *d, struct 
> > xen_domctl_shadow_op *sc,
> >  
> >      if ( unlikely(d->is_dying) )
> >      {
> > -        gdprintk(XENLOG_INFO, "Ignoring paging op on dying domain %u\n",
> > +        gdprintk(XENLOG_INFO,
> > +                 "Tried to do a paging domctl op on dying domain %u\n",
> >                   d->domain_id);
> > -        return 0;
> > +        return -EINVAL;
> >      }
> 
> ... going from "success" to "failure" here has a meaningful risk of
> regressing callers. It is my understanding that it was deliberate to
> mimic success in this case (without meaning to assign "good" or "bad"
> to that decision).

I would assume that was the original intention, yes, albeit the commit
message doesn't go into details about why mimicking success is
required, it's very well possible the code relying on this was xend.

> Can you instead fill the data to be returned in
> some simple enough way? I assume a mere memset() isn't going to be
> good enough, though (albeit public/domctl.h doesn't explicitly name
> any input-only fields, so it may not be necessary to preserve
> anything). Maybe zeroing ->mb and ->stats would do?

Hm, it still feels kind of wrong.  We do return errors elsewhere for
operations attempted against dying domains, and that seems all fine,
not sure why paging operations need to be different in this regard.
Arm does also return -EINVAL in that case.

So what about postponing this change to 4.18 in order to avoid
surprises, but then taking it in its current form at the start of the
development window, as to have time to detect any issues?

> As a minor remark: _If_ you're changing the printk(), then please
> also switch to using %pd.

I've considered this, but then printing: "Tried to do a paging domctl
op on dying domain dX" felt kind of repetitive to me because of the
usage of domain and dX in the same sentence.  Anyway, will adjust.

Thanks, Roger.