Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH V4] tools/libxc, xen/x86: Added xc_set_mem_access_multi()

[Razvan Cojocaru <rcojocaru@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 09/15/2016 04:49 PM, Wei Liu wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 04:39:47PM +0300, Razvan Cojocaru wrote:
>> On 09/07/2016 07:01 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>> On 07.09.16 at 11:12, <rcojocaru@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> Currently it is only possible to set mem_access restrictions only for
>>>> a contiguous range of GFNs (or, as a particular case, for a single GFN).
>>>> This patch introduces a new libxc function taking an array of GFNs.
>>>> The alternative would be to set each page in turn, using a userspace-HV
>>>> roundtrip for each call, and triggering a TLB flush per page set.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Razvan Cojocaru <rcojocaru@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Acked-by: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> Hypervisor parts (without ARM and x86/mm)
>>> Acked-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> albeit I spotted one more cosmetic issue (which I guess could be
>>> fixed up during commit, if no other reason for a v5 arises):
>>>
>>>> @@ -321,9 +322,22 @@ int compat_memory_op(unsigned int cmd, 
>>>> XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(void) compat)
>>>>          }
>>>>  
>>>>          case XENMEM_access_op:
>>>> -            return mem_access_memop(cmd,
>>>> -                                    guest_handle_cast(compat,
>>>> -                                                      
>>>> xen_mem_access_op_t));
>>>> +        {
>>>> +            if ( copy_from_guest(&cmp.mao, compat, 1) )
>>>> +                return -EFAULT;
>>>> +
>>>> +#define XLAT_mem_access_op_HNDL_pfn_list(_d_, _s_) \
>>>> +            guest_from_compat_handle((_d_)->pfn_list, (_s_)->pfn_list)
>>>> +#define XLAT_mem_access_op_HNDL_access_list(_d_, _s_) \
>>>> +            guest_from_compat_handle((_d_)->access_list, 
>>>> (_s_)->access_list)
>>>> +
>>>> +            XLAT_mem_access_op(nat.mao, &cmp.mao);
>>>> +
>>>> +#undef XLAT_mem_access_op_HNDL_pfn_list
>>>> +#undef XLAT_mem_access_op_HNDL_access_list
>>>> +
>>>> +            break;
>>>> +        }
>>>
>>> There are no local variables declared here, so I don't see the need
>>> for the braces.
>>
>> There have only been Acked-by replies so far, but if you'd prefer I have
>> no problem sending a V5 removing the braces.
>>
> 
> Does this patch have all the necessary acks? If so I don't mind fixing
> it up and committing it.

In addition to your ack, it's:

Acked-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Tamas K Lengyel <tamas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxx>

for the hypervisor parts (without ARM and x86/mm), vm_event and ARM
respectively.


Thanks,
Razvan

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