Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 1/4] x86/compat: Test whether guest has 32b shinfo instead of being a PV 32b domain

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 08.07.15 at 15:59, <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 07/08/2015 02:48 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 07.07.15 at 19:13, <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On 07/07/2015 12:15 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>>> On 07.07.15 at 17:46, <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> On 07/07/2015 05:11 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 29.06.15 at 22:21, <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>> @@ -737,7 +737,7 @@ int arch_set_info_guest(
>>>>>>>     
>>>>>>>         /* The context is a compat-mode one if the target domain is 
> compat-mode;
>>>>>>>          * we expect the tools to DTRT even in compat-mode callers. */
>>>>>>> -    compat = is_pv_32on64_domain(d);
>>>>>>> +    compat = has_32bit_shinfo(d);
>>>>>> Furthermore, looking at uses like this, tying such decisions to the
>>>>>> shared info layout looks kind of odd. I think for documentation
>>>>>> purposes we may need a differently named alias.
>>>>> Yes, it does look odd, which is why I was asking in another thread about
>>>>> having another field in domain structure (well, I was asking about
>>>>> replacing has_32bit_shinfo but I think I can see now that wouldn't be
>>>>> right).
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you suggesting a new macro, e.g.
>>>>> #define is_32b_mode(d)    ((d)->arch.has_32bit_shinfo)
>>>>>
>>>>> or would it better to add new field? Or get_mode() hvm op, similar to
>>>>> set_mode(), which can look, say, at EFER?
>>>> If looking at EFER (plus perhaps CS) is right in all the cases you
>>>> care about, then yes. And remember we already have
>>>> hvm_guest_x86_mode().
>>> Can't use hvm_guest_x86_mode(), it asserts on 'v != current'. But adding
>>> new op just because of that seems to be an overkill since it would
>>> essentially do what .guest_x86_mode() does. How about
>>> hvm_guest_x86_mode_unsafe() (with a better name) and wrap
>>> hvm_guest_x86_mode() with the ASSERT around it?
>> svm_guest_x86_mode() doesn't depend on v == current, but
>> vmx_guest_x86_mode() would first need to be made safe (or
>> get an "unsafe" sibling implementation). With that, the ASSERT()
>> could then check for current or non-running vCPU.
> 
> By checking for non-running you mean v->is_running? I am not sure it's 
> safe to do since is_running is set in context switch before VMCS is 
> loaded later, in vmx_do_resume().

No, I rather thought about making sure the vCPU is paused (i.e.
can't become running under your feet).

> OTOH, current itself is set before VMCS is loaded so I am not sure 
> whether the ASSERT in hvm_guest_x86_mode() is completely effective in 
> catching "bad" invocations anyway.
> 
> I think we need vmx_vmcs_enter/exit in vmx_guest_x86_mode() regardless 
> of what current is. And drop the ASSERT.

That's an option, but the current uses don't require that (and hence
a change like that may be considered harming performance if some
caller sits on a hot path).

Jan


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