Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH V8] xen/vm_event: Clean up control-register-write vm_events and add XCR0 event

[Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 02/06/15 16:39, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-05-29 at 16:45 +0300, Razvan Cojocaru wrote:
>> As suggested by Andrew Cooper, this patch attempts to remove
>> some redundancy and allow for an easier time when adding vm_events
>> for new control registers in the future, by having a single
>> VM_EVENT_REASON_WRITE_CTRLREG vm_event type, meant to serve CR0,
>> CR3, CR4 and (newly introduced) XCR0. The actual control register
>> will be deduced by the new .index field in vm_event_write_ctrlreg
>> (renamed from vm_event_mov_to_cr). The patch has also modified
>> the xen-access.c test - it is now able to log CR3 events.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Razvan Cojocaru <rcojocaru@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Acked-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
> Seems ok from the tools and arm side, so long as the xen-access.c test
> is likely to build on ARM despite the new x86-isms (it looks like it to
> me) and the following Q:
>
>> +/* Supported values for the vm_event_write_ctrlreg index. */
>> +#define VM_EVENT_X86_CR0    0
>> +#define VM_EVENT_X86_CR3    1
>> +#define VM_EVENT_X86_CR4    2
>> +#define VM_EVENT_X86_XCR0   3
> Is the intention for different architectures to use non-overlapping
> number spaces? (i.e. ARM would start from 0x10000 or something)?
>
> If not then the usages in xen-access.c are a little more problematic. I
> can just about tolerate a tool on arm which asks "monitor x86 cr3" and
> then never sees anything, but to get events for whatever ARM reg happens
> to share the index instead would be wrong I think.

When I suggested this, I expected each arch to maintain its own index
space and for these spaces to all start at 0, as there is very little
which is truly common at this level.

~Andrew

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel