On 13.03.2025 12:43, Alejandro Vallejo wrote: > On Wed Mar 12, 2025 at 4:06 AM GMT, Penny Zheng wrote: >> --- a/xen/include/xsm/dummy.h >> +++ b/xen/include/xsm/dummy.h >> @@ -180,11 +180,18 @@ static XSM_INLINE int cf_check xsm_domctl( >> } >> } >> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_SYSCTL >> static XSM_INLINE int cf_check xsm_sysctl(XSM_DEFAULT_ARG int cmd) >> { >> XSM_ASSERT_ACTION(XSM_PRIV); >> return xsm_default_action(action, current->domain, NULL); >> } >> +#else >> +static XSM_INLINE int cf_check xsm_sysctl(XSM_DEFAULT_ARG int cmd) >> +{ >> + return -EOPNOTSUPP; >> +} >> +#endif > > Doesn't this need to be -ENOSYS instead?
There shouldn't be any ENOSYS outside of the top-level hypercall handlers. Granted we have many violations thereof, some of them not very reasonable to fix (for guests looking for the specific but wrong error code). Jan