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=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED 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 845B0C433E0 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 08:05:29 +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 5D8192067B for ; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 08:05:29 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 5D8192067B 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 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jgOOQ-00051E-3Y; Wed, 03 Jun 2020 08:04:58 +0000 Received: from us1-rack-iad1.inumbo.com ([172.99.69.81]) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jgOOO-000517-Ik for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Wed, 03 Jun 2020 08:04:56 +0000 X-Inumbo-ID: e8ebe3b8-a570-11ea-9dbe-bc764e2007e4 Received: from esa4.hc3370-68.iphmx.com (unknown [216.71.155.144]) by us1-rack-iad1.inumbo.com (Halon) with ESMTPS id e8ebe3b8-a570-11ea-9dbe-bc764e2007e4; Wed, 03 Jun 2020 08:04:55 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: esa4.hc3370-68.iphmx.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.i=none IronPort-SDR: /I5ZVj8U7HfHGRMlpH5DQhW4Ul0ywGV4njgOWh+sg48a/eq0rqRa/PL/hQ6ICNEoaNtSv4N7pF uX2rhUAADtVp/MuMTptwUgKUtNhrYx5+ubRSb0vVNG/wzdFlP0X97Btold2Dy0XQ26uCzuoIDy HPdl5FFij5kKiGqEAnle10c2gDcVBc9IsecuUGywEqHo4AZWmJskpL7wAbjq4FDGh0tKIeqkoi LeddxBA051LO27SfhKqEuudH/eQZPYv3HFMon+zvMMAkuwKHISxf03Xf03VNt0Q/i3mA0ctis/ Oio= X-SBRS: 2.7 X-MesageID: 19842000 X-Ironport-Server: esa4.hc3370-68.iphmx.com X-Remote-IP: 162.221.158.21 X-Policy: $RELAYED X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.73,467,1583211600"; d="scan'208";a="19842000" Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2020 10:04:40 +0200 From: Roger Pau =?utf-8?B?TW9ubsOp?= To: Tamas K Lengyel , Alexandru Isaila , Petre Pircalabu Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 for-4.14 1/3] xen/monitor: Control register values Message-ID: <20200603080440.GB1195@Air-de-Roger> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Xen developer discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Stefano Stabellini , Julien Grall , Wei Liu , Andrew Cooper , Ian Jackson , George Dunlap , Jan Beulich , Xen-devel Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org Sender: "Xen-devel" On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 07:10:07AM -0600, Tamas K Lengyel wrote: > On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 7:00 AM Jan Beulich wrote: > > > > On 02.06.2020 14:51, Tamas K Lengyel wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 6:47 AM Jan Beulich wrote: > > >> > > >> On 02.06.2020 14:40, Tamas K Lengyel wrote: > > >>> On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 5:08 AM Roger Pau Monné wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 08:31:52PM -0600, Tamas K Lengyel wrote: > > >>>>> Extend the monitor_op domctl to include option that enables > > >>>>> controlling what values certain registers are permitted to hold > > >>>>> by a monitor subscriber. > > >>>> > > >>>> I think the change could benefit for some more detail commit message > > >>>> here. Why is this useful? > > >>> > > >>> You would have to ask the Bitdefender folks who made the feature. I > > >>> don't use it. Here we are just making it optional as it is buggy so it > > >>> is disabled by default. > > >> > > >> Now that's exactly the opposite of what I had derived from the > > >> description here so far. Perhaps an at least weak indication > > >> that you want to reword this. For example, from your reply to > > >> Roger I understand it's rather that the new flag allows to > > >> "suppress" the controlling (since presumably you don't change > > >> default behavior), rather then "enabling" it. > > > > > > What we are adding is a domctl you need to call that enables this > > > feature. It's not an option to suppress it. It shouldn't have been > > > enabled by default to begin with. That was a mistake when the feature > > > was contributed and it is buggy. > > > > Okay, in this case it's important to point out that you alter > > default behavior. The BitDefender folks may not like this, yet > > they've been surprisingly silent so far. > > Well, it was Bitdefender who altered the default behavior. We are > reverting their mistake and making it optional. But I can certainly > make that more clear. I would like some input from the Bitdefender guys. Is there a bugfix planned for this feature? It would be nice to get this in before 4.14 releases. Roger.