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=-17.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham 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 1CEA9C64E7C for ; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 15:36:23 +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 9645120B1F for ; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 15:36:22 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 9645120B1F 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.42834.77084 (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kkUAo-0000aY-Js; Wed, 02 Dec 2020 15:36:06 +0000 X-Outflank-Mailman: Message body and most headers restored to incoming version Received: by outflank-mailman (output) from mailman id 42834.77084; Wed, 02 Dec 2020 15:36:06 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.xenproject.org) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kkUAo-0000aR-Gd; Wed, 02 Dec 2020 15:36:06 +0000 Received: by outflank-mailman (input) for mailman id 42834; Wed, 02 Dec 2020 15:36:05 +0000 Received: from us1-rack-iad1.inumbo.com ([172.99.69.81]) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kkUAn-0000aM-1C for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Wed, 02 Dec 2020 15:36:05 +0000 Received: from mx2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.15]) by us1-rack-iad1.inumbo.com (Halon) with ESMTPS id d95d972e-43a9-4742-9ce6-4a52e7f6393f; Wed, 02 Dec 2020 15:36:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.221.27]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDC85AB63; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 15:36:01 +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: d95d972e-43a9-4742-9ce6-4a52e7f6393f 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=1606923361; 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: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=j3I7h9s1udaVS+hRbRz2OFRXoYsRef5P1i5uTR+suZ0=; b=pH7ZssuG2F6ZqNN3mDfgBKHr3nmV221P4UOLSlRpBattpx8QOYpUPRO4tTmV11JV4+KDQO PGLCQRugxarlE0pz59BU6VndkY8QDofq2oxE8d6KOZK8er9VP7MWqwVTMTchmwz74i6q3P P2RPIUan5FXg11lCjzyAEDKlyPgDrr0= Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 09/17] xen/hypfs: move per-node function pointers into a dedicated struct To: Juergen Gross Cc: Andrew Cooper , George Dunlap , Ian Jackson , Julien Grall , Stefano Stabellini , Wei Liu , xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org References: <20201201082128.15239-1-jgross@suse.com> <20201201082128.15239-10-jgross@suse.com> From: Jan Beulich Message-ID: Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2020 16:36:01 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20201201082128.15239-10-jgross@suse.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 01.12.2020 09:21, Juergen Gross wrote: > @@ -297,6 +321,7 @@ int hypfs_write_leaf(struct hypfs_entry_leaf *leaf, > int ret; > > ASSERT(this_cpu(hypfs_locked) == hypfs_write_locked); > + ASSERT(leaf->e.max_size); > > if ( ulen > leaf->e.max_size ) > return -ENOSPC; > @@ -357,6 +382,7 @@ int hypfs_write_custom(struct hypfs_entry_leaf *leaf, > int ret; > > ASSERT(this_cpu(hypfs_locked) == hypfs_write_locked); > + ASSERT(leaf->e.max_size); > > /* Avoid oversized buffer allocation. */ > if ( ulen > MAX_PARAM_SIZE ) At the first glance both of these hunks look as if they wouldn't belong here, but I guess the ASSERT()s are getting lifted here from hypfs_write(). (The first looks even somewhat redundant with the immediately following if().) If this understanding of mine is correct, Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich > @@ -382,19 +408,20 @@ int hypfs_write_custom(struct hypfs_entry_leaf *leaf, > return ret; > } > > +int hypfs_write_deny(struct hypfs_entry_leaf *leaf, > + XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(void) uaddr, unsigned int ulen) > +{ > + return -EACCES; > +} > + > static int hypfs_write(struct hypfs_entry *entry, > XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(void) uaddr, unsigned long ulen) As a tangent, is there a reason these write functions don't take handles of "const void"? (I realize this likely is nothing that wants addressing right here.) Jan