Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 5/5] x86/HVM: don't setup an intercept handler for IO port 0xcf8 unconditionally

[Roger Pau Monnà <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>]

El 14/01/16 a les 11.50, Andrew Cooper ha escrit:
> On 14/01/16 09:12, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 14.01.16 at 09:35, <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> El 13/01/16 a les 17.48, Paul Durrant ha escrit:
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:JBeulich@xxxxxxxx]
>>>>> Sent: 13 January 2016 16:39
>>>>> To: Paul Durrant; Roger Pau Monne
>>>>> Cc: Andrew Cooper; xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] x86/HVM: don't setup an intercept handler for IO
>>>>> port 0xcf8 unconditionally
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 13.01.16 at 13:32, <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>> Only intercept accesses to IO port 0xcf8 if there's at least one IOREQ
>>>>>> server, otherwise it makes no sense since the only code that uses the 
>>>>>> value
>>>>>> stored by hvm_access_cf8 is the IOREQ server.
>>>>> Afaict an ioreq server could also attach subsequently - Paul?
>>>>>
>>>> Indeed, ioreq servers can come and go at any time.
>>> Right, then I will have to prevent hvm_access_cf8 from being added if
>>> the domain is the hardware domain, otherwise it overlaps with the Dom0
>>> passthrough intercept (handle_pvh_io).
>> Yes, that indeed makes sense.
> 
> Even for the hardware domain, cf8 needs trapping and emulating (although
> on a different path).  Being an indirect port pair shared by Xen and
> dom0, dom0 cannot use it directly of its own accord.

Sure, but it has to be handled by handle_pvh_io (which I plan to rename
in due time) and not hvm_access_cf8.

Roger.


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