>>> On 09.04.14 at 17:27, <konrad.w...@oracle.com> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 10:06:12AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: >> >>> On 08.04.14 at 19:25, <kon...@kernel.org> wrote: >> > --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c >> > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c >> > @@ -3470,6 +3470,9 @@ static long hvm_vcpu_op( >> > case VCPUOP_stop_singleshot_timer: >> > case VCPUOP_register_vcpu_info: >> > case VCPUOP_register_vcpu_time_memory_area: >> > + case VCPUOP_down: >> > + case VCPUOP_up: >> > + case VCPUOP_is_up: >> >> This, if I checked it properly, leaves only VCPUOP_initialise, >> VCPUOP_send_nmi, and VCPUOP_get_physid disallowed for HVM. >> None of which look inherently bad to be used by HVM (but >> VCPUOP_initialise certainly would need closer checking), so I >> wonder whether either the wrapper shouldn't be dropped altogether >> or at least be converted from a white list approach to a black list one. > > I was being conservative here because I did not want to allow the > other ones without at least testing it. > > Perhaps that can be done as a seperate patch and this just as > a bug-fix?
I'm clearly not in favor of the patch as is - minimally I'd want it to convert the white list to a black list. And once you do this it would seem rather natural to not pointlessly add entries. Jan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
