>>> On 18.10.17 at 15:49, <george.dun...@citrix.com> wrote: > On 10/18/2017 02:41 PM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 18.10.17 at 12:51, <george.dun...@citrix.com> wrote: >>> @@ -2334,6 +2368,9 @@ static int _put_page_type(struct page_info *page, >>> bool preemptible, >>> ASSERT(ptpg->linear_pt_count > 0); >>> ptpg = NULL; >>> } >>> +#else /* CONFIG_PV_LINEAR_PT */ >>> + BUG_ON(ptpg && PGT_type_equal(x, ptpg->u.inuse.type_info)); >>> +#endif >> >> Along the lines of my most recent reply to v1 (which I realize I >> did send only after v2 had arrived), I'm not really certain about >> the usefulness of the preprocessor conditionals - I'd prefer if >> we went without them, but I can live with them if you strongly >> think they're better than the alternative. If you keep them, >> please convert the BUG_ON() to ASSERT() though, to be in >> line with the #ifdef side. > > I would argue that if linear pagetables are disabled, and we nonetheless > detect a linear pagetable, then BUG_ON() is the right behavior. Since > we're not properly tracking any of it, it is almost certainly the result > of a security vulnerability. Having a DoS in that case is much > preferrable to having a privilege escalation.
Okay, I can accept that argument. Which means, with the formatting issue in Kconfig taken care of, Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
