Function xsm_vm_event_control() is only invoked under CONFIG_VM_EVENT, so
it shall be wrapped with it

Signed-off-by: Penny Zheng <Penny.Zheng@amd.com>
---
v1 -> v2:
- new commit
---
 xen/include/xsm/xsm.h | 4 ++--
 xen/xsm/dummy.c       | 2 +-
 xen/xsm/flask/hooks.c | 4 ++--
 3 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/xen/include/xsm/xsm.h b/xen/include/xsm/xsm.h
index 3c960ad909..1e4647f7db 100644
--- a/xen/include/xsm/xsm.h
+++ b/xen/include/xsm/xsm.h
@@ -155,9 +155,9 @@ struct xsm_ops {
     int (*hvm_altp2mhvm_op)(struct domain *d, uint64_t mode, uint32_t op);
     int (*get_vnumainfo)(struct domain *d);
 
+#ifdef CONFIG_VM_EVENT
     int (*vm_event_control)(struct domain *d, int mode, int op);
 
-#ifdef CONFIG_VM_EVENT
     int (*mem_access)(struct domain *d);
 #endif
 
@@ -649,13 +649,13 @@ static inline int xsm_get_vnumainfo(xsm_default_t def, struct domain *d)
     return alternative_call(xsm_ops.get_vnumainfo, d);
 }
 
+#ifdef CONFIG_VM_EVENT
 static inline int xsm_vm_event_control(
     xsm_default_t def, struct domain *d, int mode, int op)
 {
     return alternative_call(xsm_ops.vm_event_control, d, mode, op);
 }
 
-#ifdef CONFIG_VM_EVENT
 static inline int xsm_mem_access(xsm_default_t def, struct domain *d)
 {
     return alternative_call(xsm_ops.mem_access, d);
diff --git a/xen/xsm/dummy.c b/xen/xsm/dummy.c
index f5483e0709..2c70b979d6 100644
--- a/xen/xsm/dummy.c
+++ b/xen/xsm/dummy.c
@@ -115,9 +115,9 @@ static const struct xsm_ops __initconst_cf_clobber dummy_ops = {
     .remove_from_physmap           = xsm_remove_from_physmap,
     .map_gmfn_foreign              = xsm_map_gmfn_foreign,
 
+#ifdef CONFIG_VM_EVENT
     .vm_event_control              = xsm_vm_event_control,
 
-#ifdef CONFIG_VM_EVENT
     .mem_access                    = xsm_mem_access,
 #endif
 
diff --git a/xen/xsm/flask/hooks.c b/xen/xsm/flask/hooks.c
index 21914d3507..ec3880f631 100644
--- a/xen/xsm/flask/hooks.c
+++ b/xen/xsm/flask/hooks.c
@@ -1365,12 +1365,12 @@ static int cf_check flask_hvm_altp2mhvm_op(struct domain *d, uint64_t mode, uint
     return current_has_perm(d, SECCLASS_HVM, HVM__ALTP2MHVM_OP);
 }
 
+#ifdef CONFIG_VM_EVENT
 static int cf_check flask_vm_event_control(struct domain *d, int mode, int op)
 {
     return current_has_perm(d, SECCLASS_DOMAIN2, DOMAIN2__VM_EVENT);
 }
 
-#ifdef CONFIG_VM_EVENT
 static int cf_check flask_mem_access(struct domain *d)
 {
     return current_has_perm(d, SECCLASS_DOMAIN2, DOMAIN2__MEM_ACCESS);
@@ -1967,9 +1967,9 @@ static const struct xsm_ops __initconst_cf_clobber flask_ops = {
     .do_xsm_op = do_flask_op,
     .get_vnumainfo = flask_get_vnumainfo,
 
+#ifdef CONFIG_VM_EVENT
     .vm_event_control = flask_vm_event_control,
 
-#ifdef CONFIG_VM_EVENT
     .mem_access = flask_mem_access,
 #endif
 
-- 
2.34.1

On 10.09.2025 09:38, Penny Zheng wrote:
> Function xsm_vm_event_control() is only invoked under CONFIG_VM_EVENT, so
> it shall be wrapped with it
> 
> Signed-off-by: Penny Zheng <Penny.Zheng@amd.com>
> ---
> v1 -> v2:
> - new commit
> ---
>  xen/include/xsm/xsm.h | 4 ++--
>  xen/xsm/dummy.c       | 2 +-
>  xen/xsm/flask/hooks.c | 4 ++--
>  3 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

What about xen/include/xsm/dummy.h?

Jan

On Wed, 10 Sep 2025, Penny Zheng wrote:
> Function xsm_vm_event_control() is only invoked under CONFIG_VM_EVENT, so
> it shall be wrapped with it
> 
> Signed-off-by: Penny Zheng <Penny.Zheng@amd.com>

Reviewed-by: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org>

On 10.09.2025 09:38, Penny Zheng wrote:
> Function xsm_vm_event_control() is only invoked under CONFIG_VM_EVENT, so
> it shall be wrapped with it

Isn't this addressing a Misra violation then? Whether it's "unreachable code"
or "dead code" I can't really tell; I don't think I have properly understood
when it is which of the two. (Change looks okay to me, apart from this aspect
of describing it.)

Jan

On Wed, 10 Sep 2025, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 10.09.2025 09:38, Penny Zheng wrote:
> > Function xsm_vm_event_control() is only invoked under CONFIG_VM_EVENT, so
> > it shall be wrapped with it
> 
> Isn't this addressing a Misra violation then? Whether it's "unreachable code"
> or "dead code" I can't really tell; I don't think I have properly understood
> when it is which of the two. (Change looks okay to me, apart from this aspect
> of describing it.)

It would be "unreachable code". So yes, this patch helps address Rule
2.1.