[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 2/2] vm_event: consolidate hvm_event_fill_regs and p2m_vm_event_fill_regs


  • To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>, Tamas K Lengyel <tlengyel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • From: Razvan Cojocaru <rcojocaru@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 12:19:06 +0200
  • Cc: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, Keir Fraser <keir@xxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Comment: DomainKeys? See http://domainkeys.sourceforge.net/
  • Delivery-date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 10:19:29 +0000
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=bitdefender.com; b=3JQ57OPkfz34h45Bgsj9DNTSZOLREaqXP/r54m/5dRlGXWcuVnhXXfXw9CK4IBtc4E08Xzi2nIMK1Z7nhsuC7lQ0Z9b0H0HHG/6uDJMzpDE4wIweN4NdD0V6cGyVNxVgKWt4Nb6o8oHvm9ZcBd01mA+SbCBSZDkjs+iCVgAigGDapFgxEij0AE6aaEWxJs+b7tmKByvcvGW5RboP6ULLsaTxrsCqIymHUn+qI3tNmZGJWrdxJQfYHLW6Jh8kE1+wytUfGAgyppT0mvJ7prk0LVeXsmyrB0pzGS90i7NNjOlRT8MvKLOwagOdYk7OVQPpZeWHGpL0iexAZRcz6HUsMg==; h=Received:Received:Received:Received:Received:Subject:To:References:Cc:From:X-Enigmail-Draft-Status:Message-ID:Date:User-Agent:MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-BitDefender-Scanner:X-BitDefender-Spam:X-BitDefender-SpamStamp:X-BitDefender-CF-Stamp;
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xen.org>

On 02/12/2016 11:57 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 12.02.16 at 01:22, <tlengyel@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/vm_event.c
>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/vm_event.c
>> @@ -122,6 +122,65 @@ void vm_event_set_registers(struct vcpu *v, 
>> vm_event_response_t *rsp)
>>      v->arch.user_regs.eip = rsp->data.regs.x86.rip;
>>  }
>>  
>> +void vm_event_fill_regs(vm_event_request_t *req)
>> +{
>> +    const struct cpu_user_regs *regs = guest_cpu_user_regs();
>> +    struct segment_register seg;
>> +    struct hvm_hw_cpu ctxt;
>> +    struct vcpu *curr = current;
>> +
>> +    req->data.regs.x86.rax = regs->eax;
>> +    req->data.regs.x86.rcx = regs->ecx;
>> +    req->data.regs.x86.rdx = regs->edx;
>> +    req->data.regs.x86.rbx = regs->ebx;
>> +    req->data.regs.x86.rsp = regs->esp;
>> +    req->data.regs.x86.rbp = regs->ebp;
>> +    req->data.regs.x86.rsi = regs->esi;
>> +    req->data.regs.x86.rdi = regs->edi;
>> +
>> +    req->data.regs.x86.r8  = regs->r8;
>> +    req->data.regs.x86.r9  = regs->r9;
>> +    req->data.regs.x86.r10 = regs->r10;
>> +    req->data.regs.x86.r11 = regs->r11;
>> +    req->data.regs.x86.r12 = regs->r12;
>> +    req->data.regs.x86.r13 = regs->r13;
>> +    req->data.regs.x86.r14 = regs->r14;
>> +    req->data.regs.x86.r15 = regs->r15;
>> +
>> +    req->data.regs.x86.rflags = regs->eflags;
>> +    req->data.regs.x86.rip    = regs->eip;
>> +
>> +    if ( !is_hvm_domain(curr->domain) )
>> +        return;
> 
> No such check existed in either of the two original functions. Why is
> it needed all of the sudden? And if it is needed, why do the other
> fields not get filled (as far as possible at least) for PV guests?

I can't speak for Tamas, but I suspect the check has been placed there
because calls to hvm_funcs.save_cpu_ctxt(curr, &ctxt) and
hvm_get_segment_register(curr, x86_seg_fs, &seg) follow, and he's put
vm_event_fill_regs() in xen/arch/x86/vm_event.c (a previous function was
called hvm_event_fill_regs(), in arch/x86/hvm/event.c, so no checking
for HVM was needed).

I don't think the check is needed for the current codepaths, but since
the code has been moved to xen/arch/x86/ the question about future PV
events is fair.


Thanks,
Razvan

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel


 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.