On 09.07.2024 13:21, Alejandro Vallejo wrote: > On Mon Jul 1, 2024 at 9:57 AM BST, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 26.06.2024 11:28, Federico Serafini wrote: >>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/mm.c >>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm.c >>> @@ -916,6 +916,7 @@ get_page_from_l1e( >>> return 0; >>> default: >>> ASSERT_UNREACHABLE(); >>> + return -EPERM; >>> } >>> } >>> else if ( l1f & _PAGE_RW ) >> >> I don't like the use of -EPERM here very much, but I understand that there's >> no really suitable errno value. I wonder though whether something far more >> "exotic" wouldn't be better in such a case, say -EBADMSG or -EADDRNOTAVAIL. >> Just to mention it: -EPERM is what failed XSM checks would typically yield, >> so from that perspective alone even switching to -EACCES might be a little >> bit better. > > fwiw: EACCES, being typically used for interface version mismatches, would > confuse me a lot.
There's no interface version check anywhere in hypercalls involving get_page_from_l1e(), I don't think. So I see little room for confusion. Jan
