On 16/09/2019 12:04, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 13.09.2019 21:27, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> v2:
>> * Bump the DOMCTL interface version
>> * Proactively set the error pointers in xc_set_domain_cpu_policy()
> From this I would have expected ...
>
>> --- a/tools/libxc/xc_cpuid_x86.c
>> +++ b/tools/libxc/xc_cpuid_x86.c
>> @@ -229,6 +229,52 @@ int xc_get_domain_cpu_policy(xc_interface *xch,
>> uint32_t domid,
>> return ret;
>> }
>>
>> +int xc_set_domain_cpu_policy(xc_interface *xch, uint32_t domid,
>> + uint32_t nr_leaves, xen_cpuid_leaf_t *leaves,
>> + uint32_t nr_msrs, xen_msr_entry_t *msrs,
>> + uint32_t *err_leaf_p, uint32_t *err_subleaf_p,
>> + uint32_t *err_msr_p)
>> +{
>> + DECLARE_DOMCTL;
>> + DECLARE_HYPERCALL_BOUNCE(leaves,
>> + nr_leaves * sizeof(*leaves),
>> + XC_HYPERCALL_BUFFER_BOUNCE_IN);
>> + DECLARE_HYPERCALL_BOUNCE(msrs,
>> + nr_msrs * sizeof(*msrs),
>> + XC_HYPERCALL_BUFFER_BOUNCE_IN);
>> + int ret;
>> +
>> + if ( xc_hypercall_bounce_pre(xch, leaves) )
>> + return -1;
>> +
>> + if ( xc_hypercall_bounce_pre(xch, msrs) )
>> + return -1;
> ... setting of *err_..._p ahead of these.
Hmm - I suppose so. Done.
>
>> @@ -658,17 +658,24 @@ struct xen_domctl_cpuid {
>> };
>>
>> /*
>> - * XEN_DOMCTL_get_cpu_policy (x86 specific)
>> + * XEN_DOMCTL_{get,set}_cpu_policy (x86 specific)
>> *
>> - * Query the CPUID and MSR policies for a specific domain.
>> + * Query or set the CPUID and MSR policies for a specific domain.
>> */
>> struct xen_domctl_cpu_policy {
>> uint32_t nr_leaves; /* IN/OUT: Number of leaves in/written to
>> * 'cpuid_policy'. */
>> uint32_t nr_msrs; /* IN/OUT: Number of MSRs in/written to
>> * 'msr_domain_policy' */
>> - XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_64(xen_cpuid_leaf_t) cpuid_policy; /* OUT */
>> - XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_64(xen_msr_entry_t) msr_policy; /* OUT */
>> + XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_64(xen_cpuid_leaf_t) cpuid_policy; /* IN/OUT */
>> + XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_64(xen_msr_entry_t) msr_policy; /* IN/OUT */
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * OUT, set_policy only. Written in some (but not all) error cases to
>> + * identify problem the CPUID leaf/subleaf and/or MSR which auditing
>> + * objects to.
>> + */
> Stray "problem", or missing further word(s)?
Stray problem. Dropped.
~Andrew
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
