linux-kernel - RE: [RFC PATCH 2/3] arch/x86/acrn: Use HYPERVISOR_CALLBACK

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: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1903250925130.1798@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date:   Mon, 25 Mar 2019 09:27:41 +0100 (CET)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     "Zhao, Yakui" <yakui.zhao@...el.com>
cc:     "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "Chen, Jason CJ" <jason.cj.chen@...el.com>
Subject: RE: [RFC PATCH 2/3] arch/x86/acrn: Use HYPERVISOR_CALLBACK_VECTOR
 for Acrn upcall vector

On Mon, 25 Mar 2019, Zhao, Yakui wrote:
> >> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */ #ifndef _ASM_X86_ACRNHYPER_H
> >> +#define _ASM_X86_ACRNHYPER_H
> >> +
> >> +#include <linux/types.h>
> >> +#include <asm/io.h>
> >> +
> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_ACRN
> >> +/* ACRN Hypervisor callback */
> >> +void acrn_hv_callback_vector(void);
> >
> >What declares acrn_hv_vector_handler() ?
> 
> Acrn_hv_callback_vector is defined in arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S, which will be used as
> the parameter of alloc_intr_gate
> 
> Acrn_hv_vector_handler is the real ISR handler, which is defined in acrn.c.

I know how that works and I was not asking where stuff is defined. I was
asking where it is declared. Global functions need a declaration in a
header file.

> >> +void acrn_remove_intr_irq(void)
> >> +{
> >> +	acrn_intr_handler = NULL;
> >> +}
> >> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(acrn_remove_intr_irq);
> >
> >Where is the code which uses these exports? We are not adding exports just
> >because or for consumption by out of tree modules.
> 
> Understand it.
> Is it reasonable that the above two functions are added in the driver patch set?

Yes, because then we see the context.

Thanks,

	tglx