From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3529DC433DB for ; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 08:14:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.xenproject.org (lists.xenproject.org [192.237.175.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E2CE523124 for ; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 08:14:12 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org E2CE523124 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=suse.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org Received: from list by lists.xenproject.org with outflank-mailman.57675.100993 (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1krcni-000694-F5; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 08:13:46 +0000 X-Outflank-Mailman: Message body and most headers restored to incoming version Received: by outflank-mailman (output) from mailman id 57675.100993; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 08:13:46 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.xenproject.org) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1krcni-00068x-Bw; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 08:13:46 +0000 Received: by outflank-mailman (input) for mailman id 57675; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 08:13:45 +0000 Received: from us1-rack-iad1.inumbo.com ([172.99.69.81]) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1krcnh-00068s-7v for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 08:13:45 +0000 Received: from mx2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.15]) by us1-rack-iad1.inumbo.com (Halon) with ESMTPS id 4dd99585-8d75-4191-9b08-ac32f98505b3; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 08:13:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.221.27]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A8F7ABA1; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 08:13:43 +0000 (UTC) X-BeenThere: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org List-Id: Xen developer discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org Precedence: list Sender: "Xen-devel" X-Inumbo-ID: 4dd99585-8d75-4191-9b08-ac32f98505b3 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=susede1; t=1608624823; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding; bh=x6z1IFuX4L22qrzsCB5/FNdV5KaYk6ubpLlPAwLHpfg=; b=OfnRaJGzL3qX6ClB2nS+VTPHPXzbkAggjelrFNH4z85FMW2ST5Jn/UqDOLTnTeD6KIJbI+ kHnV/kKe87lWFsVUBfdRoMbKfqi4sBHerbleM9B/Lkn8qRsO8Wi668UmhTs+fq3pcsY5gI qawRH0XgbbPfO2ZwfCaoQrQ1m9UuKh4= From: Jan Beulich Subject: [PATCH v2 0/2] common: XSA-327 follow-up Cc: Andrew Cooper , George Dunlap , Ian Jackson , Julien Grall , Wei Liu , Stefano Stabellini To: "xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org" Message-ID: <2a08aa31-fdbf-89ee-cd49-813f818b709a@suse.com> Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2020 09:13:42 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit There are a few largely cosmetic things that were discussed in the context of the XSA, but which weren't really XSA material. 1: common: map_vcpu_info() cosmetics 2: evtchn/fifo: don't enforce higher than necessary alignment I realize both changes are controversial. For the first one discussion was about the choice of error code. Neither EINVAL nor EFAULT represent the fact that it is a choice of implementation to not support mis-aligned structures. If ENXIO isn't liked, the best I can suggest are EOPNOTSUPP or (as previously suggested) EPERM. I think it ought to be possible to settle on an error code everyone can live with. For the second one the question was whether the relaxation is useful to do. The original reason for wanting to make the change remains: The original code here should not be used as an excuse to introduce similar over-alignment requirements elsewhere. I can live with the change getting rejected, but if so I'd like to request that some alternative be submitted to ensure that the immediate goal can still be reached. Jan