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

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 4/9] arm/vm_event: get/set registers



Hi Tamas,

On 16/05/16 16:37, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:

On May 16, 2016 04:14, "Julien Grall" <julien.grall@xxxxxxx
<mailto:julien.grall@xxxxxxx>> wrote:
 > On 04/05/16 15:51, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
 >>
 >> diff --git a/xen/include/asm-arm/vm_event.h
b/xen/include/asm-arm/vm_event.h
 >> index a3fc4ce..814d0da 100644
 >> --- a/xen/include/asm-arm/vm_event.h
 >> +++ b/xen/include/asm-arm/vm_event.h
 >> @@ -48,15 +48,10 @@ void vm_event_register_write_resume(struct vcpu
*v, vm_event_response_t *rsp)
 >>       /* Not supported on ARM. */
 >>   }
 >>
 >> -static inline
 >> -void vm_event_set_registers(struct vcpu *v, vm_event_response_t *rsp)
 >> -{
 >> -    /* Not supported on ARM. */
 >> -}
 >> +void vm_event_set_registers(struct vcpu *v, vm_event_response_t *rsp);
 >>
 >> -static inline void vm_event_fill_regs(vm_event_request_t *req)
 >> -{
 >> -    /* Not supported on ARM. */
 >> -}
 >> +void vm_event_fill_regs(vm_event_request_t *req,
 >> +                        const struct cpu_user_regs *regs,
 >> +                        struct domain *d);
 >>
 >>   #endif /* __ASM_ARM_VM_EVENT_H__ */
 >> diff --git a/xen/include/public/vm_event.h
b/xen/include/public/vm_event.h
 >> index 3acf217..fabeee8 100644
 >> --- a/xen/include/public/vm_event.h
 >> +++ b/xen/include/public/vm_event.h
 >> @@ -129,8 +129,8 @@
 >>   #define VM_EVENT_X86_XCR0   3
 >>
 >>   /*
 >> - * Using a custom struct (not hvm_hw_cpu) so as to not fill
 >> - * the vm_event ring buffer too quickly.
 >> + * Using custom vCPU structs (i.e. not hvm_hw_cpu) for both x86 and ARM
 >
 >
 > You may want to rework this sentence as hvm_hw_cpu does not exist on
ARM/ARM64.

IMHO the point gets across even if we don't name the ARM structs
specifically.

It was more for more correctness from an ARM point of view. But fair enough.


 >
 >> + * so as to not fill the vm_event ring buffer too quickly.
 >>    */
 >>   struct vm_event_regs_x86 {
 >>       uint64_t rax;
 >> @@ -168,6 +168,54 @@ struct vm_event_regs_x86 {
 >>       uint32_t _pad;
 >>   };
 >>
 >> +struct vm_event_regs_arm32 {
 >> +    uint32_t r0_usr;
 >> +    uint32_t r1_usr;
 >> +    uint32_t r2_usr;
 >> +    uint32_t r3_usr;
 >> +    uint32_t r4_usr;
 >> +    uint32_t r5_usr;
 >> +    uint32_t r6_usr;
 >> +    uint32_t r7_usr;
 >> +    uint32_t r8_usr;
 >> +    uint32_t r9_usr;
 >> +    uint32_t r10_usr;
 >> +    uint32_t r12_usr;
 >> +    uint32_t lr_usr;
 >> +    uint32_t sp_usr;
 >> +    uint32_t sp_svc;
 >> +    uint32_t spsr_svc;
 >> +    uint32_t fp;
 >> +    uint32_t pc;
 >> +    uint32_t cpsr;
 >> +    uint32_t ttbr0;
 >> +    uint32_t ttbr1;
 >> +};
 >> +
 >> +struct vm_event_regs_arm64 {
 >> +    uint64_t x0;
 >> +    uint64_t x1;
 >> +    uint64_t x2;
 >> +    uint64_t x3;
 >> +    uint64_t x4;
 >> +    uint64_t x5;
 >> +    uint64_t x6;
 >> +    uint64_t x7;
 >> +    uint64_t x8;
 >> +    uint64_t x9;
 >> +    uint64_t x10;
 >> +    uint64_t x16;
 >> +    uint64_t lr;
 >> +    uint64_t sp_el0;
 >> +    uint64_t sp_el1;
 >> +    uint32_t spsr_el1;
 >> +    uint64_t fp;
 >> +    uint64_t pc;
 >> +    uint32_t cpsr;
 >> +    uint64_t ttbr0;
 >> +    uint64_t ttbr1;
 >> +};
 >
 >
 > By defining 2 distinct structures, it will be more difficult for the
introspection tools to inspect registers of an Aarch64 domain running in
AArch32 mode. They wouldn't be able to re-use code for AArch32 domain
because the structure fields are different.
 >
 > The ARM ARM (see D1.20.1 in ARM DDI 0487A.i) provides a mapping
between AArch32 state and AArch64 state. If you use it to define the
layout of a common structure, the support of AArch32 state for AArch64
domain will come free.
 >

If the guest is running in 32-bit mode Xen will fill the 32-bit struct,
so doing a common struct is not strictly necessary. It also requires a
bunch if union declarations to match the names between that I would
prefer to avoid. IMHO it's cleaner to do the struct definitions
separately and then do a union on top.

That is not true. is_domain_32bit will check if the domain is configured to run 32-bit or 64-bit in EL1 (i.e the kernel level).

So if you have a guest with 64-bit kernel and 32-bit userspace, Xen will always fill the 64-bit structure, even when the userspace is running.

Regards,

--
Julien Grall

_______________________________________________
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®.