From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com>
To: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
Cc: Xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] xen/x86: Introduce a new VMASSIST for architectural behaviour of iopl
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 04:25:05 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <56EA941102000078000DDB1E@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1458158749-21846-3-git-send-email-andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
>>> On 16.03.16 at 21:05, <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> wrote:
> @@ -1742,8 +1742,10 @@ static void load_segments(struct vcpu *n)
> cs_and_mask = (unsigned short)regs->cs |
> ((unsigned int)vcpu_info(n, evtchn_upcall_mask) << 16);
> /* Fold upcall mask into RFLAGS.IF. */
> - eflags = regs->_eflags & ~X86_EFLAGS_IF;
> + eflags = regs->_eflags & ~(X86_EFLAGS_IF|X86_EFLAGS_IOPL);
This and ...
> @@ -1788,8 +1790,10 @@ static void load_segments(struct vcpu *n)
> ((unsigned long)vcpu_info(n, evtchn_upcall_mask) << 32);
>
> /* Fold upcall mask into RFLAGS.IF. */
> - rflags = regs->rflags & ~X86_EFLAGS_IF;
> + rflags = regs->rflags & ~(X86_EFLAGS_IF|X86_EFLAGS_IOPL);
... this is not really necessary (but also not wrong) - the actual
EFLAGS.IOPL is always zero (and assumed to be so by code
further down from the respective adjustments you make). For
consistency's sake it might be better to either drop the changes
here, or also adjust the two places masking regs->eflags.
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/traps.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/traps.c
> @@ -1806,7 +1806,9 @@ static int guest_io_okay(
> #define TOGGLE_MODE() if ( user_mode ) toggle_guest_mode(v)
>
> if ( !vm86_mode(regs) &&
> - (v->arch.pv_vcpu.iopl >= (guest_kernel_mode(v, regs) ? 1 : 3)) )
> + (MASK_EXTR(v->arch.pv_vcpu.iopl, X86_EFLAGS_IOPL) >=
> + (guest_kernel_mode(v, regs) ?
> + (VM_ASSIST(v->domain, architectural_iopl) ? 0 : 1) : 3)) )
> return 1;
>
> if ( v->arch.pv_vcpu.iobmp_limit > (port + bytes) )
> @@ -2367,7 +2369,9 @@ static int emulate_privileged_op(struct cpu_user_regs *regs)
>
> case 0xfa: /* CLI */
> case 0xfb: /* STI */
> - if ( v->arch.pv_vcpu.iopl < (guest_kernel_mode(v, regs) ? 1 : 3) )
> + if ( MASK_EXTR(v->arch.pv_vcpu.iopl, X86_EFLAGS_IOPL) <
> + (guest_kernel_mode(v, regs) ?
> + (VM_ASSIST(v->domain, architectural_iopl) ? 0 : 1) : 3) )
> goto fail;
The similarity of the two together with the growing complexity
suggests to make this a macro or inline function. Additionally
resulting binary code would likely be better if you compared
v->arch.pv_vcpu.iopl with MASK_INSR(<literal value>,
X86_EFLAGS_IOPL), even if that means having three
MASK_INSR() (albeit those perhaps again would be hidden in
a macro, e.g.
#define IOPL(n) MASK_INSR(n, X86_EFLAGS_IOPL)
).
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/x86_64/compat/entry.S
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/x86_64/compat/entry.S
> @@ -277,9 +277,14 @@ compat_create_bounce_frame:
> testb %al,%al # Bits 0-7: saved_upcall_mask
> setz %ch # %ch == !saved_upcall_mask
> movl UREGS_eflags+8(%rsp),%eax
> - andl $~X86_EFLAGS_IF,%eax
> + andl $~(X86_EFLAGS_IF|X86_EFLAGS_IOPL),%eax
See earlier comment.
> addb %ch,%ch # Bit 9 (EFLAGS.IF)
> orb %ch,%ah # Fold EFLAGS.IF into %eax
> + movq VCPU_domain(%rbx),%rcx # if ( VM_ASSIST(v->domain, architectural_iopl) )
If you used another register, this could be pulled up quite a bit,
to hide the latency of the load before the loaded value gets used.
> + testb $1 << VMASST_TYPE_architectural_iopl,DOMAIN_vm_assist(%rcx)
> + jz .Lft6
> + movzwl VCPU_iopl(%rbx),%ecx # Bits 13:12 (EFLAGS.IOPL)
Why not just MOVL?
> + orl %ecx,%eax # Fold EFLAGS.IOPL into %eax
Also I continue to think this would better be done with CMOVcc,
avoiding yet another conditional branch here.
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-03-17 10:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-03-16 20:05 [PATCH 0/2] XSA-171 Followup work Andrew Cooper
2016-03-16 20:05 ` [PATCH 1/2] xen/x86: Don't hold TRAPBOUNCE_flags in %cl during create_bounce_frame Andrew Cooper
2016-03-16 20:05 ` [PATCH 2/2] xen/x86: Introduce a new VMASSIST for architectural behaviour of iopl Andrew Cooper
2016-03-17 10:25 ` Jan Beulich [this message]
2016-03-17 10:45 ` Andrew Cooper
2016-03-17 11:00 ` Jan Beulich
2016-03-17 11:05 ` Andrew Cooper
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=56EA941102000078000DDB1E@prv-mh.provo.novell.com \
--to=jbeulich@suse.com \
--cc=andrew.cooper3@citrix.com \
--cc=luto@amacapital.net \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xen.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).