Re: [PATCH v2 09/17] xen/hypfs: move per-node function pointers into a dedicated struct

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 01.12.2020 09:21, Juergen Gross wrote:
> @@ -297,6 +321,7 @@ int hypfs_write_leaf(struct hypfs_entry_leaf *leaf,
>      int ret;
>  
>      ASSERT(this_cpu(hypfs_locked) == hypfs_write_locked);
> +    ASSERT(leaf->e.max_size);
>  
>      if ( ulen > leaf->e.max_size )
>          return -ENOSPC;
> @@ -357,6 +382,7 @@ int hypfs_write_custom(struct hypfs_entry_leaf *leaf,
>      int ret;
>  
>      ASSERT(this_cpu(hypfs_locked) == hypfs_write_locked);
> +    ASSERT(leaf->e.max_size);
>  
>      /* Avoid oversized buffer allocation. */
>      if ( ulen > MAX_PARAM_SIZE )

At the first glance both of these hunks look as if they
wouldn't belong here, but I guess the ASSERT()s are getting
lifted here from hypfs_write(). (The first looks even somewhat
redundant with the immediately following if().) If this
understanding of mine is correct,
Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>

> @@ -382,19 +408,20 @@ int hypfs_write_custom(struct hypfs_entry_leaf *leaf,
>      return ret;
>  }
>  
> +int hypfs_write_deny(struct hypfs_entry_leaf *leaf,
> +                     XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(void) uaddr, unsigned int ulen)
> +{
> +    return -EACCES;
> +}
> +
>  static int hypfs_write(struct hypfs_entry *entry,
>                         XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(void) uaddr, unsigned long 
> ulen)

As a tangent, is there a reason these write functions don't take
handles of "const void"? (I realize this likely is nothing that
wants addressing right here.)

Jan