From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B70C3C54FC9 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2020 17:31:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.xenproject.org (lists.xenproject.org [192.237.175.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 85D5E206D9 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2020 17:31:01 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=citrix.com header.i=@citrix.com header.b="To55zwlN" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 85D5E206D9 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=citrix.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.xenproject.org) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1jQwj5-0005rU-Nx; Tue, 21 Apr 2020 17:30:27 +0000 Received: from all-amaz-eas1.inumbo.com ([34.197.232.57] helo=us1-amaz-eas2.inumbo.com) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1jQwj5-0005rP-55 for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Tue, 21 Apr 2020 17:30:27 +0000 X-Inumbo-ID: c8fe2833-83f5-11ea-9175-12813bfff9fa Received: from esa5.hc3370-68.iphmx.com (unknown [216.71.155.168]) by us1-amaz-eas2.inumbo.com (Halon) with ESMTPS id c8fe2833-83f5-11ea-9175-12813bfff9fa; Tue, 21 Apr 2020 17:30:26 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=citrix.com; s=securemail; t=1587490225; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=rTyg5GkSCEnmbYmkqxtD0tdi7bqwJ71vNPKBP0QsvuU=; b=To55zwlN2IL4hRMtuFInAXNt8DaRvDvkhDxixVzY0jEBbDEAzIqvU7wJ ZneYpSrEqMcDqQA7rRY0u0hyzJDfBIJGUk5RFFkVkXWfNBSm3GlwI1iLT yhQkDXSqEMelbPNuhKFZeImEKGdn8C5VjL0c6XbrQ0uco/k9oAbpmWMEZ I=; Authentication-Results: esa5.hc3370-68.iphmx.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.i=none; spf=None smtp.pra=roger.pau@citrix.com; spf=Pass smtp.mailfrom=roger.pau@citrix.com; spf=None smtp.helo=postmaster@mail.citrix.com Received-SPF: None (esa5.hc3370-68.iphmx.com: no sender authenticity information available from domain of roger.pau@citrix.com) identity=pra; client-ip=162.221.158.21; receiver=esa5.hc3370-68.iphmx.com; envelope-from="roger.pau@citrix.com"; x-sender="roger.pau@citrix.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: Pass (esa5.hc3370-68.iphmx.com: domain of roger.pau@citrix.com designates 162.221.158.21 as permitted sender) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=162.221.158.21; receiver=esa5.hc3370-68.iphmx.com; envelope-from="roger.pau@citrix.com"; x-sender="roger.pau@citrix.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible; x-record-type="v=spf1"; x-record-text="v=spf1 ip4:209.167.231.154 ip4:178.63.86.133 ip4:195.66.111.40/30 ip4:85.115.9.32/28 ip4:199.102.83.4 ip4:192.28.146.160 ip4:192.28.146.107 ip4:216.52.6.88 ip4:216.52.6.188 ip4:162.221.158.21 ip4:162.221.156.83 ip4:168.245.78.127 ~all" Received-SPF: None (esa5.hc3370-68.iphmx.com: no sender authenticity information available from domain of postmaster@mail.citrix.com) identity=helo; client-ip=162.221.158.21; receiver=esa5.hc3370-68.iphmx.com; envelope-from="roger.pau@citrix.com"; x-sender="postmaster@mail.citrix.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible IronPort-SDR: 8+wPFDfQSk/Nl84ZXfpS+QeVyRlOobvkreTY7CtgKDs9nFYoFzojVmfRbi8htLxThPATd/gqTz e1ubtSBNiiqtOEByK9Qfpss7DfTjZHESjaFnHAVBl+p0zmaEX712KQ09AKR+rgAH1NDKDMLwmY bWnP4hcbgPcZ5Xd1R8QdJiSgWs8F4ItMyd129lIfiqqVs+PWGPXBtDVmhioFvA2WpLDk+aYiDg 10YIGf7JFTP37rfAiaafgL7sFLcQQ5chwYB0uyyMAxt1+FuAJGqLKw85HGB51whdELvDGZftPb LGE= X-SBRS: 2.7 X-MesageID: 16335694 X-Ironport-Server: esa5.hc3370-68.iphmx.com X-Remote-IP: 162.221.158.21 X-Policy: $RELAYED X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.72,411,1580792400"; d="scan'208";a="16335694" Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2020 19:30:10 +0200 From: Roger Pau =?utf-8?B?TW9ubsOp?= To: Jan Beulich Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] x86: adjustments to guest handle treatment Message-ID: <20200421173010.GY28601@Air-de-Roger> References: <9d4b738a-4487-6bfc-3076-597d074c7b47@suse.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-ClientProxiedBy: AMSPEX02CAS02.citrite.net (10.69.22.113) To AMSPEX02CL02.citrite.net (10.69.22.126) X-BeenThere: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Xen developer discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Stefano Stabellini , Julien Grall , Wei Liu , Andrew Cooper , Tim Deegan , George Dunlap , "xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org" Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org Sender: "Xen-devel" On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 11:13:23AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: > First of all avoid excessive conversions. copy_{from,to}_guest(), for > example, work fine with all of XEN_GUEST_HANDLE{,_64,_PARAM}(). I'm not sure I understand the difference between those two, as they are both placeholders for linear guest addresses? AFAICT XEN_GUEST_HANDLE should be used for guest pointers inside of an hypercall struct, while XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM is for guest pointers as hypercall arguments. But those are both just guest pointers, whether they are a parameter to the hypercall or a field in a struct, and hence could use the same type? I assume there's some reason for not doing so, and I see the comment about other arches, but again a linear guest address is just that in all arches, regardless of it's placement. Sorry, this is likely tangential to your patch. Thanks, Roger.