[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 1/2] x86/mem_event: Deliver gla fault EPT violation information
On 08/08/2014 08:00, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 08.08.14 at 01:12, <tamas.lengyel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c >> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c >> @@ -2725,6 +2725,8 @@ void hvm_inject_page_fault(int errcode, unsigned long >> cr2) >> int hvm_hap_nested_page_fault(paddr_t gpa, >> bool_t gla_valid, >> unsigned long gla, >> + bool_t fault_in_gpt, >> + bool_t fault_gla, >> bool_t access_r, >> bool_t access_w, >> bool_t access_x) > Afaic it is out of question to have a function with _six_ boolean > parameters. This needs to be consolidated into a single flags field. I > have actually done that already, in a patch serving a different > purpose (see attached), as discussed recently on this list. I would > very much appreciate if you either re-based yours on top of that or > modified it along those lines. > >> @@ -2371,11 +2372,19 @@ static void ept_handle_violation(unsigned long >> qualification, paddr_t gpa) >> } >> >> if ( qualification & EPT_GLA_VALID ) >> + { >> __vmread(GUEST_LINEAR_ADDRESS, &gla); >> + fault_gla = !!(qualification & EPT_GLA_FAULT); >> + fault_in_gpt = !fault_gla; > I am actually not agreeing with Andrew regarding the need for two > flags here, if we already know that SVM also properly expresses the > distinction between faults on page table accesses and faults on the > actual translation. The attached patch is also coded in this way, and > I agree with your earlier arguing for just a single flag. I also agree. My suggestion for two flags was on the (wrong) assumption that AMD didn't currently support providing this information (although I should have picked up on this and retracted my suggestion). ~Andrew _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |