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

Reply via email to