On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 10:10 AM Andrew Cooper
[off-list ref] wrote:

On 29/11/2019 15:05, Julien Grall wrote:

quoted

Hi,

On 27/11/2019 18:44, Pavel Tatashin wrote:

quoted

diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/xen/hypercall.h

b/arch/arm64/include/asm/xen/hypercall.h
index 3522cbaed316..1a74fb28607f 100644

--- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/xen/hypercall.h
+++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/xen/hypercall.h

@@ -1 +1,29 @@
+#ifndef _ASM_ARM64_XEN_HYPERCALL_H
+#define _ASM_ARM64_XEN_HYPERCALL_H
  #include <xen/arm/hypercall.h>
+#include <linux/uaccess.h>
+
+static inline long privcmd_call(unsigned int call, unsigned long a1,
+                unsigned long a2, unsigned long a3,
+                unsigned long a4, unsigned long a5)

I realize that privcmd_call is the only hypercall using Software PAN
at the moment. However, dm_op needs the same as hypercall will be
issued from userspace as well.

And dm_op() won't be the only example as we continue in cleaning up the
gaping hole that is privcmd.

quoted

So I was wondering whether we should create a generic function (e.g.
do_xen_hypercall() or do_xen_user_hypercall()) to cover the two
hypercalls?

Probably a good idea.

It sounds good to me, but let's keep it outside of this series.

Thank you,
Pasha

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel