On 23/05/2019 12:52, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 23.05.19 at 12:27, <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote:
>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/xstate.c
>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/xstate.c
>> @@ -660,9 +660,7 @@ static bool valid_xcr0(u64 xcr0)
>> int validate_xstate(const struct domain *d, uint64_t xcr0, uint64_t
>> xcr0_accum,
>> const struct xsave_hdr *hdr)
>> {
>> - const struct cpuid_policy *cp = d->arch.cpuid;
>> - uint64_t xcr0_max =
>> - ((uint64_t)cp->xstate.xcr0_high << 32) | cp->xstate.xcr0_low;
>> + uint64_t xcr0_max = cpuid_policy_xcr0(d->arch.cpuid);
>> unsigned int i;
>>
>> if ( (hdr->xstate_bv & ~xcr0_accum) ||
>> @@ -686,9 +684,7 @@ int validate_xstate(const struct domain *d, uint64_t
>> xcr0, uint64_t xcr0_accum,
>> int handle_xsetbv(u32 index, u64 new_bv)
>> {
>> struct vcpu *curr = current;
>> - const struct cpuid_policy *cp = curr->domain->arch.cpuid;
>> - uint64_t xcr0_max =
>> - ((uint64_t)cp->xstate.xcr0_high << 32) | cp->xstate.xcr0_low;
>> + uint64_t xcr0_max = cpuid_policy_xcr0(curr->domain->arch.cpuid);
> In both cases the variables are more appropriately named than
> the new helper. While I agree it's slightly more typing, did you
> consider calling it cpuid_policy_xcr0_max()?
Fine.
>
>> --- a/xen/include/xen/lib/x86/cpuid.h
>> +++ b/xen/include/xen/lib/x86/cpuid.h
>> @@ -308,6 +308,18 @@ static inline void cpuid_featureset_to_policy(
>> p->feat._7a1 = fs[FEATURESET_7a1];
>> }
>>
>> +static inline uint64_t cpuid_policy_xcr0(const struct cpuid_policy *p)
>> +{
>> + return ((uint64_t)p->xstate.xcr0_high << 32) | p->xstate.xcr0_low;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static inline uint64_t cpuid_policy_xstates(const struct cpuid_policy *p)
>> +{
>> + uint64_t val = p->xstate.xcr0_high | p->xstate.xss_high;
>> +
>> + return (val << 32) | p->xstate.xcr0_low | p->xstate.xss_low;
>> +}
> How about also having cpuid_policy_xss() (or cpuid_policy_xss_max())
> and then simply making cpuid_policy_xstates() combine the two
> results?
I started with that, but the resulting code was a little awkward to
read, and the asm generation was a little worse due to promoting
everything first.
I don't think we need cpuid_policy_xss{,_max}() until we actually
implement something for guests (most likely CET at this rate).
>
> Anyway, as I can also live with things as they are, with or without
> either of the suggested changes
> Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
Thanks (although I'm still happy to play around with naming).
~Andrew
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
