On 2/10/2016 6:39 PM, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 8:52 AM, Corneliu ZUZU <cz...@bitdefender.com
<mailto:cz...@bitdefender.com>> wrote:
1. Kconfig:
* Added Kconfigs for common monitor vm-events:
# see files: common/Kconfig, x86/Kconfig
HAS_VM_EVENT_WRITE_CTRLREG
HAS_VM_EVENT_SINGLESTEP
HAS_VM_EVENT_SOFTWARE_BREAKPOINT
HAS_VM_EVENT_GUEST_REQUEST
2. Moved monitor_domctl from arch-side to common-side
2.1. Moved arch/x86/monitor.c to common/monitor.c
# see files: arch/x86/Makefile, xen/common/Makefile,
xen/common/monitor.c
# changes:
- removed status_check (we would have had to duplicate it
in X86
arch_monitor_domctl_event otherwise)
- moved get_capabilities to arch-side
(arch_monitor_get_capabilities)
- moved XEN_DOMCTL_MONITOR_OP_EMULATE_EACH_REP to
arch-side (see
arch_monitor_domctl_op)
- put XEN_DOMCTL_MONITOR_EVENT_MOV_TO_MSR to x86-side (see
arch_monitor_domctl_event)
- surrounded switch cases w/ CONFIG_HAS_VM_EVENT_*
2.2. Moved asm-x86/monitor.h to xen/monitor.h
# see files: arch/x86/hvm/event.c, arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c,
arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c, xen/common/domctl.c
2.3. Removed asm-arm/monitor.h (no longer needed)
3. Added x86/monitor_x86.c => will rename in next commit to
monitor.c (not done
in this commit to avoid git seeing this as being the modified old
monitor.c =>
keeping the same name would have rendered an unnecessarily bulky diff)
# see files: arch/x86/Makefile
# implements X86-side arch_monitor_domctl_event
4. Added asm-x86/monitor_arch.h, asm-arm/monitor_arch.h (renamed to
monitor.h in next commit, reason is the same as @ (3.).
# define/implement: arch_monitor_get_capabilities,
arch_monitor_domctl_op
and arch_monitor_domctl_event
So these commit messages are not very good IMHO. Rather then just
summarizing what the patch does you should describe why the patch is
needed in the first place. Usually for longer series having a cover
page is also helpful to outline how the patches in the series fit
together.
The intention was to make review easier (following the changes in
parallel w/
the commit message). But indeed I was maybe too focused on that, should have
started w/ stating the purpose of these changes rather than jumping
directly to detailing
them. Will try to compact these commit messages next time (maybe move
details to the
introductory section instead, as you suggest).
Signed-off-by: Corneliu ZUZU <cz...@bitdefender.com
<mailto:cz...@bitdefender.com>>
---
xen/arch/x86/Kconfig | 4 +
xen/arch/x86/Makefile | 2 +-
xen/arch/x86/hvm/event.c | 2 +-
xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c | 2 +-
xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c | 2 +-
xen/arch/x86/monitor_x86.c | 72 ++++++++
xen/common/Kconfig | 20 +++
xen/common/Makefile | 1 +
xen/common/domctl.c | 2 +-
xen/{arch/x86 => common}/monitor.c | 195
+++++++++-------------
xen/include/asm-arm/{monitor.h => monitor_arch.h} | 34 +++-
xen/include/asm-x86/monitor_arch.h | 74 ++++++++
xen/include/{asm-x86 => xen}/monitor.h | 17 +-
13 files changed, 293 insertions(+), 134 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 xen/arch/x86/monitor_x86.c
rename xen/{arch/x86 => common}/monitor.c (44%)
rename xen/include/asm-arm/{monitor.h => monitor_arch.h} (46%)
create mode 100644 xen/include/asm-x86/monitor_arch.h
rename xen/include/{asm-x86 => xen}/monitor.h (74%)
diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/Kconfig b/xen/arch/x86/Kconfig
index 3a90f47..e46be1b 100644
--- a/xen/arch/x86/Kconfig
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/Kconfig
@@ -14,6 +14,10 @@ config X86
select HAS_MEM_ACCESS
select HAS_MEM_PAGING
select HAS_MEM_SHARING
+ select HAS_VM_EVENT_WRITE_CTRLREG
You mentioned in the previous revision of this series that currently
you only have plans to implement write_ctrleg and guest_request events
for ARM. I think singlestep and software_breakpoint should not be
moved to common without a clear plan to have those implemented. Now,
if you were to include the implementation of write_ctrlreg and
guest_request in this series and leave the others in x86 as they are
now, I don't think there would be any reason to have these Kconfig
options present at all.
Moving what made sense to be moved to common was a suggestion of Ian's.
The purpose of this patch is to --avoid-- having to go through this
process again
when an implementation of feature X for architecture A != X86 comes into
place.
IMHO what is common should stay in common and I don't see any issues w/
having them there, only advantages (future implementations of these
features will
be easier).
Maybe Ian can chime in on this.
Regarding single-step & software-breakpoint monitor vm-events for ARM, that
should be very feasible IMO, as I detailed in an email I sent to you in
v1, in which
I was pointing how we could use the debugging architecture.
+bool_t arch_monitor_domctl_event(struct domain *d,
+ struct xen_domctl_monitor_op *mop,
+ int *rc)
+{
+ struct arch_domain *ad = &d->arch;
+ bool_t requested_status = (XEN_DOMCTL_MONITOR_OP_ENABLE ==
mop->op);
+
+ switch ( mop->event )
+ {
+ case XEN_DOMCTL_MONITOR_EVENT_MOV_TO_MSR:
+ {
+ bool_t old_status = ad->monitor.mov_to_msr_enabled;
+
+ if ( unlikely(old_status == requested_status) )
+ return -EEXIST;
This function is defined to return bool_t and yet you are returning
non-boolean error codes. I think it would be better if this function
just had a single rc instead of two (not passing one rc as a pointer
on input).
That's a baad mistake, good catch. It should be "*rc = -EEXIST; return
1", will change in v3.
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
Thank you,
Corneliu.
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
