Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86/hvm: Corrections and improvements to unhandled vmexit logging

[Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 20/04/17 11:52, Jan Beulich wrote:
>  >>> On 19.04.17 at 17:58, <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/svm/svm.c
>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/svm/svm.c
>> @@ -2833,10 +2833,9 @@ void svm_vmexit_handler(struct cpu_user_regs *regs)
>>  
>>      default:
>>      unexpected_exit_type:
>> -        gdprintk(XENLOG_ERR, "unexpected VMEXIT: exit reason = %#"PRIx64", "
>> -                 "exitinfo1 = %#"PRIx64", exitinfo2 = %#"PRIx64"\n",
>> -                 exit_reason, 
>> -                 (u64)vmcb->exitinfo1, (u64)vmcb->exitinfo2);
>> +        gprintk(XENLOG_ERR, "Bad vmexit: reason %#"PRIx64", "
>> +                "exitinfo1 %#"PRIx64", exitinfo2 %#"PRIx64"\n",
>> +                exit_reason, (u64)vmcb->exitinfo1, (u64)vmcb->exitinfo2);
> Personally I think "unexpected" was more appropriate than "bad".
> Also I would have wished for you to eliminate the bogus casts as
> you touch these lines anyway.

Bad was for consistency between VT-x and SVM, and these messages also
include the exit_and_crash cases, meaning that "unexpected" isn't
entirely appropriate.

I'm happy to take an alternative if you can thing of something better.

>
>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c
>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c
>> @@ -4106,7 +4106,7 @@ void vmx_vmexit_handler(struct cpu_user_regs *regs)
>>      /* fall through */
>>      default:
>>      exit_and_crash:
>> -        gdprintk(XENLOG_WARNING, "Bad vmexit (reason %#lx)\n", exit_reason);
>> +        gprintk(XENLOG_ERR, "Bad vmexit: reason %ld\n", exit_reason);
> %lu
>
> With at least this last aspect taken care of
> Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>

Will fix both.

~Andrew

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