"Jan Beulich" <jbeul...@suse.com> writes:
>>>> On 13.05.15 at 11:49, <vkuzn...@redhat.com> wrote:
>> --- a/xen/include/xsm/dummy.h
>> +++ b/xen/include/xsm/dummy.h
>> @@ -193,6 +193,13 @@ static XSM_INLINE int
>> xsm_memory_exchange(XSM_DEFAULT_ARG struct domain *d)
>> return xsm_default_action(action, current->domain, d);
>> }
>>
>> +static XSM_INLINE int xsm_memory_soft_reset(XSM_DEFAULT_ARG struct domain
>> *d1,
>> + struct domain *d2)
>> +{
>> + XSM_ASSERT_ACTION(XSM_PRIV);
>> + return xsm_default_action(action, current->domain, NULL);
>> +}
>
> Why XSM_PRIV instead of XSM_TARGET against _both_ domains?
>
No reason to be honest. We agreed on a 2-step check for FLASK with
Daniel (the caller has permission to operate on both domains and the
memory itself can be transfered), XSM_TARGET against both domains in
dummy seems reasonable too.
> Jan
--
Vitaly
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
