On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 2:18 AM, Razvan Cojocaru <rcojoc...@bitdefender.com>
wrote:
> On 05/03/2016 11:14 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>>> On 29.04.16 at 18:12, <rcojoc...@bitdefender.com> wrote:
> >> On 04/09/16 08:54, Razvan Cojocaru wrote:
> >>> It is meaningless (and potentially dangerous - see
> hvmemul_virtual_to_linear())
> >>> to set mem_access_emulate_each_rep before xc_monitor_enable() (which
> allocates
> >>> vcpu->arch.vm_event) has been called, so return an error from the
> >>> XEN_DOMCTL_MONITOR_OP_EMULATE_EACH_REP hypercall when that is the case.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Razvan Cojocaru <rcojoc...@bitdefender.com>
> >>> Reviewed-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citirx.com>
> >>>
> >>> ---
> >>> Changes since V2:
> >>> - Updated the if() condition as recommended by Andrew Cooper.
> >>> - Added Andrew Cooper's Reviewed-by.
> >>> ---
> >>> xen/include/asm-x86/monitor.h | 16 +++++++++++++---
> >>> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/xen/include/asm-x86/monitor.h
> b/xen/include/asm-x86/monitor.h
> >>> index 0954b59..d367099 100644
> >>> --- a/xen/include/asm-x86/monitor.h
> >>> +++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/monitor.h
> >>> @@ -32,19 +32,29 @@
> >>> static inline
> >>> int arch_monitor_domctl_op(struct domain *d, struct
> xen_domctl_monitor_op *mop)
> >>> {
> >>> + int rc = 0;
> >>> +
> >>> switch ( mop->op )
> >>> {
> >>> case XEN_DOMCTL_MONITOR_OP_EMULATE_EACH_REP:
> >>> domain_pause(d);
> >>> - d->arch.mem_access_emulate_each_rep = !!mop->event;
> >>> + /*
> >>> + * Enabling mem_access_emulate_each_rep without a vm_event
> subscriber
> >>> + * is meaningless.
> >>> + */
> >>> + if ( d->max_vcpus && d->vcpu[0] && d->vcpu[0]->arch.vm_event )
> >>> + d->arch.mem_access_emulate_each_rep = !!mop->event;
> >>> + else
> >>> + rc = -EINVAL;
> >>> +
> >>> domain_unpause(d);
> >>> break;
> >>>
> >>> default:
> >>> - return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> >>> + rc = -EOPNOTSUPP;
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> - return 0;
> >>> + return rc;
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> int arch_monitor_domctl_event(struct domain *d,
> >>
> >> According to the previous list discussion with Andrew Cooper, this fix
> >> might be considered for the 4.7 release, so CC-ing Wei for a release
> >> ack, as suggested.
> >
> > Even if - without the pending ./MAINTAINERS adjustment - not
> > formally required, I don't understand why you didn't Cc Tamas on
> > this patch. I don't think this should go in without his ack.
>
> Of course, I was under the impression that he was in the recipients list
> (I let scripts/maintaners.pl do the work and didn't pay much attention
> to its output).
>
> By all means.
>
The maintainers file wasn't covering this header properly. Fixed in my
other patch-set.
Acked-by: Tamas K Lengyel <ta...@tklengyel.com>
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
