On 13.03.2025 12:43, Alejandro Vallejo wrote:
> On Wed Mar 12, 2025 at 4:06 AM GMT, Penny Zheng wrote:
>> --- a/xen/include/xsm/dummy.h
>> +++ b/xen/include/xsm/dummy.h
>> @@ -180,11 +180,18 @@ static XSM_INLINE int cf_check xsm_domctl(
>> }
>> }
>>
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_SYSCTL
>> static XSM_INLINE int cf_check xsm_sysctl(XSM_DEFAULT_ARG int cmd)
>> {
>> XSM_ASSERT_ACTION(XSM_PRIV);
>> return xsm_default_action(action, current->domain, NULL);
>> }
>> +#else
>> +static XSM_INLINE int cf_check xsm_sysctl(XSM_DEFAULT_ARG int cmd)
>> +{
>> + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>> +}
>> +#endif
>
> Doesn't this need to be -ENOSYS instead?
There shouldn't be any ENOSYS outside of the top-level hypercall handlers.
Granted we have many violations thereof, some of them not very reasonable
to fix (for guests looking for the specific but wrong error code).
Jan
