From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v03 02/10] domctl: introduce
 access_remote_pagetable call
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2014 10:46:55 +0100
Message-ID: <5406FFAF0200007800030235@mail.emea.novell.com>
References: <1409672770-23164-1-git-send-email-andrii.tseglytskyi@globallogic.com>
	<1409672770-23164-3-git-send-email-andrii.tseglytskyi@globallogic.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <1409672770-23164-3-git-send-email-andrii.tseglytskyi@globallogic.com>
Content-Disposition: inline
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Andrii Tseglytskyi <andrii.tseglytskyi@globallogic.com>
Cc: Julien Grall <julien.grall@linaro.org>, Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@citrix.com>, Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>, xen-devel@lists.xen.org
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

>>> On 02.09.14 at 17:46, <andrii.tseglytskyi@globallogic.com> wrote:
> --- a/xen/include/public/domctl.h
> +++ b/xen/include/public/domctl.h
> @@ -1067,6 +1067,7 @@ struct xen_domctl {
>  #define XEN_DOMCTL_configure_domain              74
>  #define XEN_DOMCTL_dtdev_op                      75
>  #define XEN_DOMCTL_assign_dt_device              76
> +#define XEN_DOMCTL_access_remote_pagetable       77

What's the point of introducing but not handling this?

> --- a/xen/xsm/flask/hooks.c
> +++ b/xen/xsm/flask/hooks.c
> @@ -718,6 +718,9 @@ static int flask_domctl(struct domain *d, int cmd)
>      case XEN_DOMCTL_configure_domain:
>          return current_has_perm(d, SECCLASS_DOMAIN2, DOMAIN2__CONFIGURE_DOMAIN);
>  
> +    case XEN_DOMCTL_access_remote_pagetable:
> +        return current_has_perm(d, SECCLASS_DOMAIN2, DOMAIN2__ACCESS_REMOTE_PAGETABLE);

This would seem too weak a check, as it's an all or nothing one. I
could easily see an entity to be permitted access to one GPU, but
not to others or IPUs.

Also you should Cc the XSM maintainer on XSM changes.

Jan