linux-kernel - Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen/apic: implement io apic read with hypercall

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <4F9195DE020000780007EEB1@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
Date:	Fri, 20 Apr 2012 15:59:10 +0100
From:	"Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@...e.com>
To:	"Lin Ming" <mlin@...pku.edu.cn>
Cc:	"Andrew Cooper" <Andrew.Cooper3@...rix.com>,
	"Ian Campbell" <Ian.Campbell@...rix.com>,
	"xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com" <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
	"Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk" <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen/apic: implement io apic read with
 hypercall

>>> On 20.04.12 at 16:50, Lin Ming <mlin@...pku.edu.cn> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 9:12 PM, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...rix.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 2012-04-20 at 13:53 +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Under what circumstances can these hypercalls fail? Would a BUG_ON be
>>> > appropriate/
>>>
>>> -EFAULT, -EPERM, anything xsm_apic() could return (which looks only to
>>> be -EPERM).
>>
>> So either the guest has called a hypercall which it is not permitted to
>> or it has called it with invalid parameters of one sort or another. Both
>> of these would be a code bug in the guest and therefore asserting that
>> no failure occurred is reasonable?
>>
>> What could the caller do with the error other than log it and collapse?
>>
>>> The call into Xen itself will return 0 as a value if an
>>> invalid physbase is passed in the hypercall.
>>
>>> So a BUG_ON() is not safe/sensible for domU.
>>
>> I think you have successfully argued that it is ;-)
> 
> BUG_ON is too severe. How about WARN_ON?
> 
> ret = hypercall(...)
> 
> if (ret) {
>    WARN_ON(1);
>    return -1;
> }

But if you go with this, please use the more modern

if (WARN_ON(ret))
	return -1;

Jan

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/