[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC] DOMCTL_memattrs_op : a new DOMCTL to play with stage-2 page attributes

>>> On 03.07.17 at 19:58, <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Jul 2017, Zhongze Liu wrote:
>> 2017-07-03 22:25 GMT+08:00 Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>:
>> >>>> On 30.06.17 at 22:15, <blackskygg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> #define XEN_DOMCTL_MEMATTRS_ACCESS_N         0x00U
>> >> #define XEN_DOMCTL_MEMATTRS_ACCESS_R         (0x01U<<0)
>> >> #define XEN_DOMCTL_MEMATTRS_ACCESS_W         (0x01U<<1)
>> >> #define XEN_DOMCTL_MEMATTRS_ACCESS_X         (0x01U<<2)
>> >> #define XEN_DOMCTL_MEMATTRS_ACCESS_RW        \
>> >> #define XEN_DOMCTL_MEMATTRS_ACCESS_RX        \
>> >> #define XEN_DOMCTL_MEMATTRS_ACCESS_WX        \
>> >> #define XEN_DOMCTL_MEMATTRS_ACCESS_RWX        \
>> >
>> > ... with this basically duplicating
>> > XENMEM_access_op_{set,get}_access I now wonder whether
>> > we don't already have all you need (apart from an ARM variant of
>> > DOMCTL_pin_mem_cacheattr).
>> In fact, there isn't much description on the usage of this
>> interface, so I turned to the implementation in
>> xen/common/mem_access.c, where I see this
>> interface invoking  p2m_set_mem_acess, which further invokes
>> set_mem_acess and finally
>> p2m->set_entry(), so I guess this might be the right interface to use.
>> To confirm the guess, I turned to Stabellini for help, and he told me
>> that XENMEM_access_op
>> is "for getting very detail info on what the guest is accessing", and
>> might not be suitable
>> for this scenario, so I just gave up using it, and that's why I have this 
>> RFC.
>> I'll re-confirm this with Stabellini.
> I thought that those two hypercalls were meant to be used for mem_access
> and vm_event operations, as in xen/arch/arm/mem_access.c and
> xen/arch/x86/mm/mem_access.c. The only caller is
> tools/tests/xen-access/xen-access.c. They are enabled separatly as part
> of the mem_access interface: their build is conditional to
> CONFIG_HAS_MEM_ACCESS. Unless we want to move them from XENMEM_access_*
> to DOMCTL_* operations, I don't think they could be used?

For one, we could remove the CONFIG_HAS_MEM_ACCESS around
them if a broader use is planned. And in general we should try to
avoid having two ways of doing the same thing, unless backwards
compatibility makes this a requirement. Hence if a new, better way
is to be introduced, the old one should at once go away. Finally, I'm
still unconvinced a new DOMCTL_* is better here than a (tool stack
only) XENMEM_*, but I agree the boundary between when to use
what is at best fuzzy.


Xen-devel mailing list



Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.