On 13.11.2023 20:05, Stewart Hildebrand wrote:
> On 11/13/23 08:26, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 02.11.2023 20:59, Stewart Hildebrand wrote:
>>> @@ -575,6 +577,18 @@ static int sanitise_domain_config(struct
>>> xen_domctl_createdomain *config)
>>> return -EINVAL;
>>> }
>>>
>>> + if ( vpci && !hvm )
>>> + {
>>> + dprintk(XENLOG_INFO, "vPCI requested for non-HVM guest\n");
>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + if ( vpci && !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HAS_VPCI) )
>>> + {
>>> + dprintk(XENLOG_INFO, "vPCI requested but not enabled\n");
>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>> + }
>>
>> Maybe flip the order of these checks? But I'm uncertain about the first
>> one anyway: Isn't this something that needs deciding per-arch?
>
> In v4, the equivalent of the ( vpci && !hvm ) check was indeed in
> xen/arch/x86/domain.c:emulation_flags_ok(), but it seemed there was a
> suggestion that it be moved to common code... See discussion at [1]. How
> about putting it back into xen/arch/x86/domain.c, in
> arch_sanitise_domain_config(), not emulation_flags_ok()?
Actually no, I take back that part of the comment. I think I mistakenly
considered PVH as "non-HVM" (as the log message has it).
Jan
> [1] https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2023-10/msg02345.html
