> -----Original Message----- > From: Jan Beulich [mailto:jbeul...@suse.com] > Sent: 15 December 2016 15:23 > To: Paul Durrant <paul.durr...@citrix.com> > Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com>; Ian Jackson > <ian.jack...@citrix.com>; Jennifer Herbert <jennifer.herb...@citrix.com>; > Wei Liu <wei.l...@citrix.com>; xen-de...@lists.xenproject.org; Daniel De > Graaf <dgde...@tycho.nsa.gov> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/8] public / x86: Introduce __HYPERCALL_dm_op... > > >>> On 06.12.16 at 14:46, <paul.durr...@citrix.com> wrote: > > ...as a set of hypercalls to be used by a device model. > > > > As stated in the new docs/designs/dm_op.markdown: > > > > "The aim of DMOP is to prevent a compromised device model from > > compromising domains other then the one it is associated with. (And is > > therefore likely already compromised)." > > > > See that file for further information. > > > > This patch simply adds the boilerplate for the hypercall. > > > > Signed-off-by: Paul Durrant <paul.durr...@citrix.com> > > Suggested-by: Ian Jackson <ian.jack...@citrix.com> > > Suggested-by: Jennifer Herbert <jennifer.herb...@citrix.com> > > Hypervisor parts > Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> > albeit with one more question/adjustment request: > > > +struct xen_dm_op_buf { > > + XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(void) h; > > + uint64_aligned_t size; > > Does size need to be 64 bits wide? I thing 32 should suffice, even if > that won't shrink structure size (because the handle really wants to > be XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_64() for a tool stack-only interface which > we don't want to have a compat wrapper for).
Sure. I don't think it does need to be that wide in reality. Paul > > Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
