[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86/EPT: defer enabling of A/D maintenance until PML get enabled
On 10/15/2015 03:11 PM, Jan Beulich wrote: On 15.10.15 at 08:42, <kai.huang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Thanks for your comments Jan. Actually I am not happy with combining with EPT A/D bit update with PML enabling to single function. After thinking again, how about adding a separate vmx function (ex, vmx_domain_update_eptp) to update EPTP of VMCS of all vcpus of domain after p2m->ept.ept_ad is updated. Another good is this function can also be used in the future for other runtime updates to p2m->ept. What's your idea?I don't mind, but that's really more of a question to the VMX maintainers. Then I would prefer this way. Kevin, Do you have any comments on this thread? --- a/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m-ept.c +++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m-ept.c @@ -1129,17 +1129,26 @@ void ept_sync_domain(struct p2m_domain *p2m) static void ept_enable_pml(struct p2m_domain *p2m) { /* - * No need to check if vmx_domain_enable_pml has succeeded or not, as + * No need to return if vmx_domain_enable_pml has succeeded or not, asIt seems to me that you'd better use "whether" instead of "if" now (and then perhaps also drop the "or not"). OK. Thanks. Looks we don't have such function. How about just add ASSERT(atomic_read(&d->pause_count)), just the same as in vmx_domain_enable_pml ?* ept_p2m_type_to_flags will do the check, and write protection will be * used if PML is not enabled. */ - vmx_domain_enable_pml(p2m->domain); + if ( vmx_domain_enable_pml(p2m->domain) ) + return; + + p2m->ept.ept_ad = 1; + vmx_domain_update_eptp(p2m->domain);Shouldn't you enable A/D _before_ enabling PML, at least without having a domain-is-paused check here? Thanks, -Kai Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |