From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Razvan Cojocaru <rcojocaru@bitdefender.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 5/5] xen: Handle resumed instruction
 based on previous mem_event reply
Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2014 18:53:43 +0300
Message-ID: <540DD107.8010000@bitdefender.com>
References: <1409911297-3360-1-git-send-email-rcojocaru@bitdefender.com>	<1409911297-3360-6-git-send-email-rcojocaru@bitdefender.com>
	<540DEC4A02000078000322A8@mail.emea.novell.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
Received: from mail6.bemta14.messagelabs.com ([193.109.254.103])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <rcojocaru@bitdefender.com>) id 1XR1GJ-0002r6-A1
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Mon, 08 Sep 2014 15:53:51 +0000
In-Reply-To: <540DEC4A02000078000322A8@mail.emea.novell.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: kevin.tian@intel.com, keir@xen.org, ian.campbell@citrix.com, stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com, andrew.cooper3@citrix.com, eddie.dong@intel.com, tim@xen.org, jun.nakajima@intel.com, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 09/08/14 18:50, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 05.09.14 at 12:01, <rcojocaru@bitdefender.com> wrote:
>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c
>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c
>> @@ -1695,6 +1695,21 @@ static void vmx_enable_msr_exit_interception(struct domain *d)
>>                                           MSR_TYPE_W);
>>  }
>>  
>> +static bool_t vmx_exited_by_nested_pagefault(void)
>> +{
>> +    unsigned long exit_qualification, exit_reason;
>> +
>> +    __vmread(VM_EXIT_REASON, &exit_reason);
>> +    ASSERT(exit_reason == EXIT_REASON_EPT_VIOLATION);
>> +
>> +    __vmread(EXIT_QUALIFICATION, &exit_qualification);
>> +
>> +    if ( (exit_qualification & EPT_GLA_FAULT) == 0 )
>> +        return 0;
>> +
>> +    return 1;
>> +}
> 
> So I said a number of times that I think this new function can go
> away with the recent changes introducing struct npfec, making
> the interesting bit of information already available to
> p2m_mem_access_check() if I'm not mistaken. And the previous
> excuse of that code not being committed yet is no longer valid.

I'll change that and test the code first thing tomorrow.


Thanks,
Razvan Cojocaru