Jan Beulich
2012-Jun-21 15:29 UTC
[PATCH] x86-64: revert mmconfig part of c/s 24425:053a44894279
These additions did not fulfill their purpose - they checked hypervisor
config space accesses instead of guest (Dom0) ones.
Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
--- a/xen/arch/x86/x86_64/mmconfig_64.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/x86_64/mmconfig_64.c
@@ -14,7 +14,6 @@
#include <xen/xmalloc.h>
#include <xen/pci.h>
#include <xen/pci_regs.h>
-#include <xsm/xsm.h>
#include "mmconfig.h"
@@ -59,7 +58,6 @@ int pci_mmcfg_read(unsigned int seg, uns
unsigned int devfn, int reg, int len, u32 *value)
{
char __iomem *addr;
- uint32_t mbdf;
/* Why do we have this when nobody checks it. How about a BUG()!? -AK */
if (unlikely((bus > 255) || (devfn > 255) || (reg > 4095))) {
@@ -67,12 +65,6 @@ err: *value = -1;
return -EINVAL;
}
- mbdf = (seg << 16) | (bus << 8) | devfn;
- if (xsm_pci_config_permission(current->domain, mbdf, reg, reg + len - 1,
0)) {
- *value = -1;
- return -EPERM;
- }
-
addr = pci_dev_base(seg, bus, devfn);
if (!addr)
goto err;
@@ -96,16 +88,11 @@ int pci_mmcfg_write(unsigned int seg, un
unsigned int devfn, int reg, int len, u32 value)
{
char __iomem *addr;
- uint32_t mbdf;
/* Why do we have this when nobody checks it. How about a BUG()!? -AK */
if (unlikely((bus > 255) || (devfn > 255) || (reg > 4095)))
return -EINVAL;
- mbdf = (seg << 16) | (bus << 8) | devfn;
- if (xsm_pci_config_permission(current->domain, mbdf, reg, reg + len - 1,
1))
- return -EPERM;
-
addr = pci_dev_base(seg, bus, devfn);
if (!addr)
return -EINVAL;
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
Keir Fraser
2012-Jun-21 16:26 UTC
Re: [PATCH] x86-64: revert mmconfig part of c/s 24425:053a44894279
On 21/06/2012 16:29, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:> These additions did not fulfill their purpose - they checked hypervisor > config space accesses instead of guest (Dom0) ones. > > Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>Acked-by: Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/x86_64/mmconfig_64.c > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/x86_64/mmconfig_64.c > @@ -14,7 +14,6 @@ > #include <xen/xmalloc.h> > #include <xen/pci.h> > #include <xen/pci_regs.h> > -#include <xsm/xsm.h> > > #include "mmconfig.h" > > @@ -59,7 +58,6 @@ int pci_mmcfg_read(unsigned int seg, uns > unsigned int devfn, int reg, int len, u32 *value) > { > char __iomem *addr; > - uint32_t mbdf; > > /* Why do we have this when nobody checks it. How about a BUG()!? -AK */ > if (unlikely((bus > 255) || (devfn > 255) || (reg > 4095))) { > @@ -67,12 +65,6 @@ err: *value = -1; > return -EINVAL; > } > > - mbdf = (seg << 16) | (bus << 8) | devfn; > - if (xsm_pci_config_permission(current->domain, mbdf, reg, reg + len - 1, > 0)) { > - *value = -1; > - return -EPERM; > - } > - > addr = pci_dev_base(seg, bus, devfn); > if (!addr) > goto err; > @@ -96,16 +88,11 @@ int pci_mmcfg_write(unsigned int seg, un > unsigned int devfn, int reg, int len, u32 value) > { > char __iomem *addr; > - uint32_t mbdf; > > /* Why do we have this when nobody checks it. How about a BUG()!? -AK */ > if (unlikely((bus > 255) || (devfn > 255) || (reg > 4095))) > return -EINVAL; > > - mbdf = (seg << 16) | (bus << 8) | devfn; > - if (xsm_pci_config_permission(current->domain, mbdf, reg, reg + len - 1, > 1)) > - return -EPERM; > - > addr = pci_dev_base(seg, bus, devfn); > if (!addr) > return -EINVAL; > > > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@lists.xen.org > http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel