From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tamas K Lengyel 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 16:08:06 +0200 Message-ID: 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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============8054124372937716539==" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <54217D0F.90606@bitdefender.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Razvan Cojocaru Cc: Ian Campbell , Tim Deegan , Julien Grall , Ian Jackson , "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" , Stefano Stabellini , Andres Lagar-Cavilla , Jan Beulich , Daniel De Graaf , Tamas K Lengyel List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org --===============8054124372937716539== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3127eb803c90503bc184e --001a11c3127eb803c90503bc184e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 4:00 PM, Razvan Cojocaru 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? > > Yes, I think its too generic of a name (which IMHO applies to the boolean on the hvm_domain as well, introspection_enabled). I don't know what would be an adequate name for this really. Tamas > > Regards, > Razvan Cojocaru > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@lists.xen.org > http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel > --001a11c3127eb803c90503bc184e Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 4:00 PM, Razvan Cojocaru <= rcojocaru@bi= tdefender.com> wrote:
On 09/23/2014 04:32 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 23.09.14 at 15:14, <tklengyel@sec.in.tum.de> 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,
>>=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0= =A0 =A0 HVM_PARAM_ACCESS_RING_PFN,
>>=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0= =A0 =A0 mem_access_notification);
>>
>> -=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 if ( mec->op !=3D XEN_DOMCTL_MEM_EVENT= _OP_ACCESS_ENABLE &&
>> -=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0rc =3D=3D 0 && hvm_fun= cs.enable_msr_exit_interception )
>> -=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 {
>> -=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 d->arch.hvm_domain.introspecti= on_enabled =3D 1;
>> -=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 hvm_funcs.enable_msr_exit_interce= ption(d);
>> -=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 }
>> +=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 if ( !rc && mec->op !=3D XEN_D= OMCTL_MEM_EVENT_OP_ACCESS_ENABLE )
>> +=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 p2m_enable_msr_exit_interception(= d);
>
> The name is clearly not suitable for an abstraction - there's cert= ainly
> 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?


Yes, I think its too generic of a name= (which IMHO applies to the boolean on the hvm_domain as well, introspectio= n_enabled). I don't know what would be an adequate name for this really= .

Tamas
=A0

Regards,
Razvan Cojocaru

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.x= en.org/xen-devel

--001a11c3127eb803c90503bc184e-- --===============8054124372937716539== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel --===============8054124372937716539==--