Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 12/12] x86/altp2m: XSM hooks for altp2m HVM ops

[Daniel De Graaf <dgdegra@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 06/26/2015 03:35 PM, Ed White wrote:
> On 06/26/2015 12:24 PM, Daniel De Graaf wrote:
> > On 06/22/2015 02:56 PM, Ed White wrote:
> > > From: Ravi Sahita <ravi.sahita@xxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Ravi Sahita <ravi.sahita@xxxxxxxxx>
> > One comment, below.
> >
> > [...]
> > > diff --git a/tools/flask/policy/policy/modules/xen/xen.if 
> > > b/tools/flask/policy/policy/modules/xen/xen.if
> > > index f4cde11..c95109f 100644
> > > --- a/tools/flask/policy/policy/modules/xen/xen.if
> > > +++ b/tools/flask/policy/policy/modules/xen/xen.if
> > > @@ -8,7 +8,7 @@
> > >    define(`declare_domain_common', `
> > >        allow $1 $2:grant { query setup };
> > >        allow $1 $2:mmu { adjust physmap map_read map_write stat pinpage 
> > > updatemp mmuext_op };
> > > -    allow $1 $2:hvm { getparam setparam };
> > > +    allow $1 $2:hvm { getparam setparam altp2mhvm altp2mhvm_op };
> > >        allow $1 $2:domain2 get_vnumainfo;
> > >    ')
> > This allows any domain to enable altp2m on itself; I think you meant to
> > only allow altp2mhvm_op here, requiring a privileged domain to first
> > enable the feature on a domain before anyone can use it.
> We certainly don't want to unconditionally disallow that. We want the
> policy to offer the ability to choose whether it's allowed or not.
> Does the patch do that?
Remove altp2mhvm from the above line, leaving only altp2mhvm_op here.  The
other line added to xen.if should still contain both. This makes the FLASK
policy match the no-XSM case, which I assume is what you've tested.

--
Daniel De Graaf
National Security Agency

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel