On 27.04.2021 19:47, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 27/04/2021 16:53, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 26.04.2021 19:54, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>> @@ -497,7 +501,9 @@ struct vmcb_struct {
>>> u64 rip;
>>> u64 res14[11];
>>> u64 rsp;
>>> - u64 res15[3];
>>> + u64 _msr_s_cet; /* offset 0x400 + 0x1E0 - cleanbit 12 */
>>> + u64 _ssp; /* offset 0x400 + 0x1E8 | */
>>> + u64 _msr_isst; /* offset 0x400 + 0x1F0 v */
>>> u64 rax;
>>> u64 star;
>>> u64 lstar;
>> Any reason for the leading underscores, when none of the neighboring
>> fields have such?
>
> Yes - they're covered by a cleanbit, and for better or worse, this is
> our style.
The underscore prefixes are, to my understanding, there only to
emphasize that the fields shouldn't be accessed directly, but ...
>> Did you perhaps mean to add VMCB_ACCESSORS()
>> instances for them?
>
> TBH, I opencoded the cleanbit handling because I thoroughly hate that
> entire infrastructure.
... via this (or something with similar abstracting effect). So
for any fields you mean to access directly they imo shouldn't be
there. I particularly don't view them as indicators of being
covered by cleanbits (if the respective accessors aren't used).
Jan
