Re: [PATCH v2] x86/pv: Inject #UD for missing SYSCALL callbacks

2020-10-14 Thread Andrew Cooper
On 14/10/2020 17:28, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > On Fri, Oct 09, 2020 at 12:53:01PM +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote: >> Despite appearing to be a deliberate design choice of early PV64, the >> resulting behaviour for unregistered SYSCALL callbacks creates an untenable >> testability problem for Xen. Furth

Re: [PATCH v2] x86/pv: Inject #UD for missing SYSCALL callbacks

2020-10-14 Thread Roger Pau Monné
On Fri, Oct 09, 2020 at 12:53:01PM +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote: > Despite appearing to be a deliberate design choice of early PV64, the > resulting behaviour for unregistered SYSCALL callbacks creates an untenable > testability problem for Xen. Furthermore, the behaviour is undocumented, > bizarre,

Re: [PATCH v2] x86/pv: Inject #UD for missing SYSCALL callbacks

2020-10-14 Thread Andrew Cooper
On 14/10/2020 15:16, Roger Pau Monné wrote: >> This change does constitute a change in the PV ABI, for corner cases of a PV >> guest kernel registering neither callback, or not registering the 32bit >> callback when running on AMD/Hygon hardware. > Is there any place suitable to document this behav

Re: [PATCH v2] x86/pv: Inject #UD for missing SYSCALL callbacks

2020-10-14 Thread Andrew Cooper
On 14/10/2020 15:20, Manuel Bouyer wrote: > On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 04:16:20PM +0200, Roger Pau Monné wrote: >> [...] >> Would this result in a regression for NetBSD then? Is it fine to see >> #UD regardless of the platform? It's not clear to me from the text >> above whether this change will cause

Re: [PATCH v2] x86/pv: Inject #UD for missing SYSCALL callbacks

2020-10-14 Thread Manuel Bouyer
On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 04:16:20PM +0200, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > [...] > Would this result in a regression for NetBSD then? Is it fine to see > #UD regardless of the platform? It's not clear to me from the text > above whether this change will cause issues with NetBSD. AFAIK this should not caus

Re: [PATCH v2] x86/pv: Inject #UD for missing SYSCALL callbacks

2020-10-14 Thread Roger Pau Monné
On Fri, Oct 09, 2020 at 12:53:01PM +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote: > Despite appearing to be a deliberate design choice of early PV64, the > resulting behaviour for unregistered SYSCALL callbacks creates an untenable > testability problem for Xen. Furthermore, the behaviour is undocumented, > bizarre,

Re: [PATCH v2] x86/pv: Inject #UD for missing SYSCALL callbacks

2020-10-09 Thread Andrew Cooper
On 09/10/2020 13:40, Manuel Bouyer wrote: > On Fri, Oct 09, 2020 at 12:53:01PM +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote: >> Despite appearing to be a deliberate design choice of early PV64, the >> resulting behaviour for unregistered SYSCALL callbacks creates an untenable >> testability problem for Xen. Further

Re: [PATCH v2] x86/pv: Inject #UD for missing SYSCALL callbacks

2020-10-09 Thread Manuel Bouyer
On Fri, Oct 09, 2020 at 12:53:01PM +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote: > Despite appearing to be a deliberate design choice of early PV64, the > resulting behaviour for unregistered SYSCALL callbacks creates an untenable > testability problem for Xen. Furthermore, the behaviour is undocumented, > bizarre,