Hi,
On 17/12/2021 13:23, Oleksii Moisieiev wrote:
+static int map_memory_to_domain(struct domain *d, uint64_t addr, uint64_t len)
+{
+ return iomem_permit_access(d, paddr_to_pfn(addr),
+ paddr_to_pfn(PAGE_ALIGN(addr + len -1)));
+}
+
+static int unmap_memory_from_domain(struct domain *d, uint64_t addr,
+ uint64_t len)
+{
+ return iomem_deny_access(d, paddr_to_pfn(addr),
+ paddr_to_pfn(PAGE_ALIGN(addr + len -1)));
+}
I wonder, why we need an extra level of indirection here. And if this is
really needed, I wonder why map(unmap)_memory* name was chosen, as there is
no memory mapping/unmapping really happens here.
I've added extra indirection to hide math like
paddr_to_pfn(PAGE_ALIGN(addr + len -1)
so you don't have to math in each call. unmap_memory_from_domain called
from 2 places, so I moved both calls to separate function.
Although, I agree that map/unmap is not perfect name. I consider
renaming it to mem_permit_acces and mam_deny_access.
I haven't looked at the rest of the series. But this discussion caught
my eye. This code implies that the address is page-aligned but the
length not. Is that intended?
That said, if you give permission to the domain on a full page then it
means it may be able to access address it should not. Can you explain
why this is fine?
Cheers,
--
Julien Grall
