On Jun 6, 2016 04:08, "Julien Grall" <julien.gr...@arm.com> wrote: > > Hello, > > > On 04/06/2016 18:40, Tamas K Lengyel wrote: >> >> On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 3:03 AM, Edgar E. Iglesias >> <edgar.igles...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Forwarding SMC events for SMC insns that didn't pass the condition tests >>> doesn't make any sense to me. It'll just make the receivers job harder. >>> Why would a receiver want to do anything else than drop these? >>> If it actually does look at them it'll be looking at implementation >>> defined HW behaviour that may vary between CPU implementations. >> >> >> If for no other purposes it may be useful to log them to be able to >> study the CPU implementation's behavior. > > > I cannot see how you will be able to study ARM CPU implementation's behavior with VM event. Though I am not familiar with it. > > For now, it looks like to me that forwarding conditional SMC even if the condition check has failed will require a lot of code in each introspection applications, not to mention that they will need specific code to distinguish ARMv7 vs ARMv8.
Why would it require any more code? Right now the only thing the listener can do is to increment pc to jump over the SMC. That would be the same regardless of what type it was. As for checking whether it was v7 or v8, if that is of interest to the app it should implement the appropriate logic for it. I don't see a problem there either. > > Anyway, I am planning to send a patch to ignore conditional SMCs if the condition check has failed because this is the right thing to do. As I said I don't really care for these cases so fine by me. Tamas
_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
