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

[Jürgen Groß <jgross@xxxxxxxx>]

On 02.12.20 16:36, Jan Beulich wrote:
> 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,
It is.

> Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
Thanks.

> > @@ -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.)
No, not really.

I'll change that.


Juergen

Attachment: OpenPGP_0xB0DE9DD628BF132F.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature