From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Razvan Cojocaru Subject: Re: [PATCH for-4.5 v8 06/19] xen: Relocate mem_event_op domctl and access_op memop into common. Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 17:23:26 +0300 Message-ID: <5421825E.1040607@bitdefender.com> References: <1411478070-13836-1-git-send-email-tklengyel@sec.in.tum.de> <1411478070-13836-7-git-send-email-tklengyel@sec.in.tum.de> <542192860200007800037BB5@mail.emea.novell.com> <54217D0F.90606@bitdefender.com> <54219AD70200007800037C02@mail.emea.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Tamas K Lengyel , Jan Beulich Cc: Ian Campbell , Tim Deegan , Julien Grall , Ian Jackson , "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" , Stefano Stabellini , Andres Lagar-Cavilla , Daniel De Graaf , Tamas K Lengyel List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 09/23/2014 05:13 PM, Tamas K Lengyel wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 4:07 PM, Jan Beulich > wrote: > > >>> On 23.09.14 at 16:00, > wrote: > > On 09/23/2014 04:32 PM, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>>>> On 23.09.14 at 15:14, > 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? > > I'd be fine with that name provided the != above gets converted > to a == XEN_DOMCTL_MEM_EVENT_OP_ACCESS_ENABLE_INTROSPECTION. > > Jan > > > My problem with this name is that introspection is really way too > generic of a term. You can certainly do all sorts of introspection > without having this feature or using this feature.. Ultimately its just > a name so if this becomes Xen's terminology to mean this particular > feature I'm fine with it but that's going to be confusing when other > people talk about 'introspection'. "Introspection" in general, yes, is a bit generic. However, the "MEM_EVENT_OP_ACCESS" part of XEN_DOMCTL_MEM_EVENT_OP_ACCESS_ENABLE_INTROSPECTION, and the "p2m_" part of "p2m_set_up_introspection()" would, I think, narrow it down a bit more. But it is, of course, ultimately up to you (and the Xen maintainers). It was merely a suggestion. Regards, Razvan Cojocaru