On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 4:07 PM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:

> >>> On 23.09.14 at 16:00, <rcojocaru@bitdefender.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,
> >>>                                      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'.

Tamas