WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

[Xen-devel] [RFO] Action when bad address passed in hypercall by guest

To: "Xen-Devel (E-mail)" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Xen-devel] [RFO] Action when bad address passed in hypercall by guest
From: Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 10:01:03 -0700 (PDT)
Delivery-date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 10:02:21 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Request for opinions:

In tmem, for most hypercalls the (PV only) guest passes a gfn
(guest machine frame number).

What is the appropriate action if the gfn is "bad" (specifically
fails the p2m_ram_rw test from gfn_to_mfn)?

A) Ignore it (but return an error from the hypercall)
B) __domain_crash() as the guest is surely broken or malicious
C) ???

So far I haven't seen this, but the existing code I have for
this case -- ASSERT(0) -- is certainly wrong ;-)

Thanks,
Dan

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>