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

Re: [PATCH v4 03/10] tools/libxl: add vmtrace_pt_size parameter

----- 7 lip 2020 o 11:16, Julien Grall julien@xxxxxxx napisał(a):

> On 07/07/2020 10:10, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 07.07.2020 10:44, Julien Grall wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> On 06/07/2020 09:46, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 04.07.2020 19:23, Julien Grall wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> On 03/07/2020 11:11, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 03, 2020 at 11:56:38AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>>> On 03.07.2020 11:44, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 06:23:28PM +0200, Michał Leszczyński wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In previous versions it was "size" but it was requested to change it
>>>>>>>>> to "order" in order to shrink the variable size from uint64_t to
>>>>>>>>> uint8_t, because there is limited space for xen_domctl_createdomain
>>>>>>>>> structure.
>>>>>>>> It's likely I'm missing something here, but I wasn't aware
>>>>>>>> xen_domctl_createdomain had any constrains regarding it's size. It's
>>>>>>>> currently 48bytes which seems fairly small.
>>>>>>> Additionally I would guess a uint32_t could do here, if the value
>>>>>>> passed was "number of pages" rather than "number of bytes"?
>>>>> Looking at the rest of the code, the toolstack accepts a 64-bit value.
>>>>> So this would lead to truncation of the buffer if it is bigger than 2^44
>>>>> bytes.
>>>>> I agree such buffer is unlikely, yet I still think we want to harden the
>>>>> code whenever we can. So the solution is to either prevent check
>>>>> truncation in libxl or directly use 64-bit in the domctl.
>>>>> My preference is the latter.
>>>>>> That could work, not sure if it needs to state however that those will
>>>>>> be 4K pages, since Arm can have a different minimum page size IIRC?
>>>>>> (or that's already the assumption for all number of frames fields)
>>>>>> vmtrace_nr_frames seems fine to me.
>>>>> The hypercalls interface is using the same page granularity as the
>>>>> hypervisor (i.e 4KB).
>>>>> While we already support guest using 64KB page granularity, it is
>>>>> impossible to have a 64KB Arm hypervisor in the current state. You are
>>>>> going to either break existing guest (if you switch to 64KB page
>>>>> granularity for the hypercall ABI) or render them insecure (the mimimum
>>>>> mapping in the P2M would be 64KB).
>>>>> DOMCTLs are not stable yet, so using a number of pages is OK. However, I
>>>>> would strongly suggest to use a number of bytes for any xl/libxl/stable
>>>>> libraries interfaces as this avoids confusion and also make more
>>>>> futureproof.
>>>> If we can't settle on what "page size" means in the public interface
>>>> (which imo is embarrassing), then how about going with number of kb,
>>>> like other memory libxl controls do? (I guess using Mb, in line with
>>>> other config file controls, may end up being too coarse here.) This
>>>> would likely still allow for a 32-bit field to be wide enough.
>>> A 32-bit field would definitely not be able to cover a full address
>>> space. So do you mind to explain what is the upper bound you expect here?
>> Do you foresee a need for buffer sizes of 4Tb and up?
> Not I am aware of... However, I think the question was worth it given
> that "wide enough" can mean anything.
> Cheers,
> --
> Julien Grall

So would it be OK to use uint32_t everywhere and to store the trace buffer
size as number of kB? I think this is the most straightforward option.

I would also stick with the name "processor_trace_buf_size"
everywhere, both in the hypervisor, ABI and the toolstack, with the
respective comments that the size is in kB.

Best regards,
Michał Leszczyński
CERT Polska



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