On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 4:00 PM, Razvan Cojocaru <rcojocaru@bitdefender.com>
wrote:

> On 09/23/2014 04:32 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>>> On 23.09.14 at 15:14, <tklengyel@sec.in.tum.de> wrote:
> >> --- a/xen/common/mem_event.c
> >> +++ b/xen/common/mem_event.c
> >> @@ -623,12 +623,9 @@ int mem_event_domctl(struct domain *d,
> >> xen_domctl_mem_event_op_t *mec,
> >>                                      HVM_PARAM_ACCESS_RING_PFN,
> >>                                      mem_access_notification);
> >>
> >> -            if ( mec->op != XEN_DOMCTL_MEM_EVENT_OP_ACCESS_ENABLE &&
> >> -                 rc == 0 && hvm_funcs.enable_msr_exit_interception )
> >> -            {
> >> -                d->arch.hvm_domain.introspection_enabled = 1;
> >> -                hvm_funcs.enable_msr_exit_interception(d);
> >> -            }
> >> +            if ( !rc && mec->op !=
> XEN_DOMCTL_MEM_EVENT_OP_ACCESS_ENABLE )
> >> +                p2m_enable_msr_exit_interception(d);
> >
> > The name is clearly not suitable for an abstraction - there's certainly
> > not going to be MSRs on each and every CPU architecture. Maybe
> > consult with Razvan on an agreeable more suitable name.
>
> P2m_set_up_introspection() perhaps? With the MSR HVM code where
> applicable, nothing (or something else) where not? Would this be too
> generic?
>
>
Yes, I think its too generic of a name (which IMHO applies to the boolean
on the hvm_domain as well, introspection_enabled). I don't know what would
be an adequate name for this really.

Tamas


>
> Regards,
> Razvan Cojocaru
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
> http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
>