[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] xen/arm: Add way to disable traps on accesses to unmapped addresses
On Mon, Jun 02, 2025 at 10:45:36AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 30.05.2025 15:45, Edgar E. Iglesias wrote: > > --- a/xen/common/domain.c > > +++ b/xen/common/domain.c > > @@ -721,7 +721,8 @@ static int sanitise_domain_config(struct > > xen_domctl_createdomain *config) > > ~(XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_hvm | XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_hap | > > XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_s3_integrity | XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_oos_off | > > XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_xs_domain | XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_iommu | > > - XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_nested_virt | XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_vpmu) ) > > + XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_nested_virt | XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_vpmu | > > + XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_trap_unmapped_accesses) ) > > { > > dprintk(XENLOG_INFO, "Unknown CDF flags %#x\n", config->flags); > > return -EINVAL; > > --- a/xen/include/public/domctl.h > > +++ b/xen/include/public/domctl.h > > @@ -66,9 +66,11 @@ struct xen_domctl_createdomain { > > #define XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_nested_virt (1U << _XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_nested_virt) > > /* Should we expose the vPMU to the guest? */ > > #define XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_vpmu (1U << 7) > > +/* Should we trap guest accesses to unmapped addresses? */ > > +#define XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_trap_unmapped_accesses (1U << 8) > > Besides being pretty long an identifier (and that's already with "guest" not > even in the name), if this is to be arch-independent, would this perhaps fit > x86'es recently introduced "advanced" PVH handling of holes? See [1]. > Looks like the implementation of the options would be related but trap_unmapped_accesses is intended for domU's and pf-fixup is for dom0 IIUC, so in terms of configuration they would be different... I'm happy to change the name of trap_unmapped_accesses if there are better (and shorter) ideas. Thanks, Edgar > Jan > > [1] 104591f5dd67 ("x86/dom0: attempt to fixup p2m page-faults for PVH dom0")
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |