Re: [Xen-devel] [v2][PATCH] xen/vtd/iommu: permit group devices to passthrough in relaxed mode

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 14.09.15 at 08:24, <tiejun.chen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>  OK, that explanation is fine to me as long as it's made clear no
>> security guarantee once admin uses 'relax' for any domain. Tiejun
>> could you resend patch with right warning/error type?
>>
> 
> Sure, but a little bit makes me confused when I'm trying to address 
> this. Actually most messages are same, except for logevel, so I did this 
> like,
> 
>              printk(XENLOG_G_INFO VTDPREFIX " Assign %04x:%02x:%02x.%u"
>                     " with shared RMRR at %"PRIx64" for Dom%d.",
>                     seg, bus, PCI_SLOT(devfn), PCI_FUNC(devfn),
>                     rmrr->base_address, d->domain_id);
>              if ( relaxed )
>                  printk(XENLOG_G_WARNING VTDPREFIX " It's really risky.");
>              else
>                  printk(XENLOG_G_ERR VTDPREFIX " So it's disallowed!");
>              printk(XENLOG_G_INFO VTDPREFIX "\n");
> 
> But looks its not better, so any idea?

Did you at least make an attempt to find other examples of where
we dynamically determine the log level to be used for a message?
I would assume that if you did, you'd have come to

            printk(XENLOG_GUEST "%s" VTDPREFIX
                   " It's %s to assign %04x:%02x:%02x.%u"
                   " with shared RMRR at %"PRIx64" for Dom%d.\n",
                   relaxed ? XENLOG_WARNING : XENLOG_ERROR,
                   relaxed ? "risky" : "disallowed",
                   seg, bus, PCI_SLOT(devfn), PCI_FUNC(devfn),
                   rmrr->base_address, d->domain_id);

pretty naturally.

Jan


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