[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2021 11:57:37 +0200
From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...e.com>
To: Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>,
xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] xen/hvc: replace BUG_ON() with negative return value
On 07.07.2021 11:10, Juergen Gross wrote:
> Xen frontends shouldn't BUG() in case of illegal data received from
> their backends. So replace the BUG_ON()s when reading illegal data from
> the ring page with negative return values.
>
> Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...e.com>
> --- a/drivers/tty/hvc/hvc_xen.c
> +++ b/drivers/tty/hvc/hvc_xen.c
> @@ -86,7 +86,11 @@ static int __write_console(struct xencons_info *xencons,
> cons = intf->out_cons;
> prod = intf->out_prod;
> mb(); /* update queue values before going on */
Largely unrelated note: While in general the barriers here may want
switching to virt_*mb(), this particular one looks to be too heavy
anyway: a read barrier is all that's needed here afaict, just like
there's only a write barrier between ring contents and producer
writing in __write_console().
And btw, since I've got puzzled by the linuxppc-dev@ in the recipients
list, I did look up relevant entries in ./MAINTAINERS. Shouldn't the
file be part of "XEN HYPERVISOR INTERFACE"?
Jan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists