On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 05:51:17PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 12.04.2021 17:40, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 05:24:41PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> On 12.04.2021 16:49, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 12:07:12PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>>> On 12.04.2021 11:34, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> >>>>> On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 05:54:57PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>>>>> --- a/xen/include/xen/sched.h
> >>>>>> +++ b/xen/include/xen/sched.h
> >>>>>> @@ -985,7 +985,7 @@ static always_inline bool is_control_dom
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> static always_inline bool is_pv_domain(const struct domain *d)
> >>>>>> {
> >>>>>> - return IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PV) &&
> >>>>>> + return IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_X86) &&
> >>>>>> evaluate_nospec(!(d->options & XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_hvm));
> >>>>>> }
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> @@ -1011,7 +1011,7 @@ static always_inline bool is_pv_32bit_vc
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> static always_inline bool is_pv_64bit_domain(const struct domain *d)
> >>>>>> {
> >>>>>> - if ( !is_pv_domain(d) )
> >>>>>> + if ( !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PV) || !is_pv_domain(d) )
> >>>>>> return false;
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I think overall is confusing to have a domain that returns true for
> >>>>> is_pv_domain but false for both is_pv_{64,32}bit_domain checks.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I know those are only the system domains, but it feels confusing and
> >>>>> could cause mistakes in the future IMO, as then we would have to
> >>>>> carefully think where to use ( is_pv_64bit_domain(d)
> >>>>> || is_pv_32bit_domain(d) ) vs just using is_pv_domain(d), or
> >>>>> IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PV) && is_pv_domain(d)
> >>>>
> >>>> Imo it's not "then we would have to carefully think where to use ..."
> >>>> but instead this patch is an indication that we should have been for
> >>>> quite some time. For this reason (coming back to your first comment
> >>>> at the top) I'm not sure adding a comment _there_ is actually useful.
> >>>> Every use of is_pv_*() needs carefully considering which domains are
> >>>> really meant.
> >>>
> >>> Maybe we shouldn't have used is_pv_domain as a way to hide code from
> >>> the compiler and instead always provide dummy functions, as even with
> >>> PV support compiled out we still need some of it for system domains.
> >>>
> >>> I'm not sure I have a good proposal to make, but it seems wrong to me
> >>> that is_pv_domain(d) could be different than is_pv_64bit_domain(d) ||
> >>> is_pv_32bit_domain(d).
> >>
> >> Hmm, so we're of opposite opinions - not sure what to do. Short of
> >> having / introducing is_system_domain() or some such (with all the
> >> needed auditing) I can't see how assuming the two would mean the
> >> same could ever have been true. With what we have is_pv_domain() is
> >> legitimately true for them, and both is_pv_{32,64}bit_domain() ought
> >> to be false (as there's no specific bitness associated with them)
> >> imo _at least_ when !PV.
> >
> > It's all quite ugly, but I wasn't really getting your reasoning that
> > system domains can be considered PV domains without a bitness.
> >
> > I think we both agree that long term having is_system_domain would be
> > the cleanest solution, but it needs a lot of auditing.
>
> Yes.
>
> > I think I would
> > be fine if you could add a comment somewhere noting that system
> > domains can be identified as PV domains without a bitness, so that
> > it's likely less confusing in the future.
>
> I've added
>
> /*
> * Note that is_pv_domain() can return true (for system domains) even when
> * both is_pv_64bit_domain() and is_pv_32bit_domain() return false. IOW
> * system domains can be considered PV without specific bitness.
> */
>
> immediately ahead of is_pv_domain(). Does this sound okay?
Yes, I think the text is fine, I'm however confused by the resulting
code in is_pv_64bit_domain:
static always_inline bool is_pv_64bit_domain(const struct domain *d)
{
if ( !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PV) || !is_pv_domain(d) )
return false;
#ifdef CONFIG_PV32
return !d->arch.pv.is_32bit;
#else
return true;
#endif
}
Won't this return true for system domains if CONFIG_PV is enabled, and
hence the distinction that system domains are PV domain without a
bitness won't be true anymore?
Sorry if I'm missing something, I find this all quite confusing.
Thanks, Roger.
