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: <1334934367.28331.99.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com>
Date:	Fri, 20 Apr 2012 16:06:07 +0100
From:	Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...rix.com>
To:	Lin Ming <mlin@...pku.edu.cn>
CC:	Andrew Cooper <Andrew.Cooper3@...rix.com>,
	"xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com" <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk" <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen/apic: implement io apic read with
 hypercall

On Fri, 2012-04-20 at 15:50 +0100, Lin Ming 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.

Why? Under what circumstances can this be correctly called in a way
which would result in the hypercall failing?

>  How about WARN_ON?
> 
> ret = hypercall(...)
> 
> if (ret) {
>    WARN_ON(1);
>    return -1;
> }
> 
> 
> >
> > Ian.


--
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/