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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:   Tue, 26 Mar 2019 08:58:58 +0800
From:   "Zhao, Yakui" <yakui.zhao@...el.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
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 2019年03月25日 16:27, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> 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.

Sure. It will be declared in next version.

> 
>>>> +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.

OK. They will be removed.  And it will be included in driver patch set.

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 	tglx
>