Re: [PATCH] xen/kexec: return error code for unknown hypercalls

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

On Fri, Feb 06, 2026 at 06:35:32PM +0000, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 06/02/2026 6:31 pm, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
> > Currently do_kexec_op_internal() will return 0 for unknown hypercalls.  Fix
> > this by returning -EOPNOTSUPP instead.
> >
> > Fixes: d046f361dc93 ("Xen Security Modules: XSM")
> > Reported-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Reviewed-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> > ---
> > Arguably the error code for unsupported kexec hypercalls was already wonky
> > before the XSM addiiton, as it would return -EINVAL.  It's however way
> > worse after the XSM addition, as it returns 0.
> > ---
> >  xen/common/kexec.c | 7 +++++--
> >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/xen/common/kexec.c b/xen/common/kexec.c
> > index 84fe8c35976e..8f52c5506d4a 100644
> > --- a/xen/common/kexec.c
> > +++ b/xen/common/kexec.c
> > @@ -1217,9 +1217,8 @@ static int do_kexec_op_internal(unsigned long op,
> >                                  XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(void) uarg,
> >                                  bool compat)
> >  {
> > -    int ret = -EINVAL;
> > +    int ret = xsm_kexec(XSM_PRIV);
> >  
> > -    ret = xsm_kexec(XSM_PRIV);
> >      if ( ret )
> >          return ret;
> 
> Personally, I'd just have `int ret;` and leave the xsm_kexec() call as
> it was.  That leaves the slightly more normal pattern intact.

I'm fine with that as it also drops the dead -EINVAL initialization.

Thanks, Roger.