mbox series

[v2,0/7] x86: compat header generation and checking adjustments

Message ID bb6a96c6-b6b1-76ff-f9db-10bec0fb4ab1@suse.com (mailing list archive)
Headers show
Series x86: compat header generation and checking adjustments | expand

Message

Jan Beulich July 1, 2020, 10:22 a.m. UTC
As was pointed out by 0e2e54966af5 ("mm: fix public declaration of
struct xen_mem_acquire_resource"), we're not currently handling structs
correctly that have uint64_aligned_t fields. Patch 2 demonstrates that
there was also an issue with XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_64().

Only the 1st patch was previously sent, but the approach chosen has
been changed altogether. All later patches are new. For 4.14 I think
at least patch 1 should be considered.

1: x86: fix compat header generation
2: x86/mce: add compat struct checking for XEN_MC_inject_v2
3: x86/mce: bring hypercall subop compat checking in sync again
4: x86/dmop: add compat struct checking for XEN_DMOP_map_mem_type_to_ioreq_server
5: x86: generalize padding field handling
6: flask: drop dead compat translation code
7: x86: only generate compat headers actually needed

Jan

Comments

Paul Durrant July 2, 2020, 7:34 a.m. UTC | #1
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
> Sent: 01 July 2020 11:23
> To: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
> Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>; George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@eu.citrix.com>; Ian
> Jackson <ian.jackson@citrix.com>; Julien Grall <julien@xen.org>; Wei Liu <wl@xen.org>; Stefano
> Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org>; Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@citrix.com>; Paul Durrant
> <paul@xen.org>
> Subject: [PATCH v2 0/7] x86: compat header generation and checking adjustments
> 
> As was pointed out by 0e2e54966af5 ("mm: fix public declaration of
> struct xen_mem_acquire_resource"), we're not currently handling structs
> correctly that have uint64_aligned_t fields. Patch 2 demonstrates that
> there was also an issue with XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_64().
> 
> Only the 1st patch was previously sent, but the approach chosen has
> been changed altogether. All later patches are new. For 4.14 I think
> at least patch 1 should be considered.

It's now quite a large patch. Since xen_mem_acquire_resouce() has been fixed, patch #1 (as you say in the comment there) is addressing a latent issue and so I’d prefer not to take what is now quite a large patch into 4.14.

  Paul

> 
> 1: x86: fix compat header generation
> 2: x86/mce: add compat struct checking for XEN_MC_inject_v2
> 3: x86/mce: bring hypercall subop compat checking in sync again
> 4: x86/dmop: add compat struct checking for XEN_DMOP_map_mem_type_to_ioreq_server
> 5: x86: generalize padding field handling
> 6: flask: drop dead compat translation code
> 7: x86: only generate compat headers actually needed
> 
> Jan
Jan Beulich July 2, 2020, 7:42 a.m. UTC | #2
On 02.07.2020 09:34, Paul Durrant wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
>> Sent: 01 July 2020 11:23
>> To: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
>> Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>; George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@eu.citrix.com>; Ian
>> Jackson <ian.jackson@citrix.com>; Julien Grall <julien@xen.org>; Wei Liu <wl@xen.org>; Stefano
>> Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org>; Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@citrix.com>; Paul Durrant
>> <paul@xen.org>
>> Subject: [PATCH v2 0/7] x86: compat header generation and checking adjustments
>>
>> As was pointed out by 0e2e54966af5 ("mm: fix public declaration of
>> struct xen_mem_acquire_resource"), we're not currently handling structs
>> correctly that have uint64_aligned_t fields. Patch 2 demonstrates that
>> there was also an issue with XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_64().
>>
>> Only the 1st patch was previously sent, but the approach chosen has
>> been changed altogether. All later patches are new. For 4.14 I think
>> at least patch 1 should be considered.
> 
> It's now quite a large patch.

Most parts being entirely mechanical, though. But still ...

> Since xen_mem_acquire_resouce() has been fixed, patch #1 (as you say
> in the comment there) is addressing a latent issue and so I’d prefer
> not to take what is now quite a large patch into 4.14.

... fair enough.

Jan