On 2/16/2016 12:45 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 16.02.16 at 09:13, <cz...@bitdefender.com> wrote:
On 2/16/2016 9:08 AM, Corneliu ZUZU wrote:
This patch moves monitor_domctl to common-side.
Purpose: move what's common to common, prepare for implementation
of such vm-events on ARM.
* move get_capabilities to arch-side => arch_monitor_get_capabilities.
* add arch-side monitor op handling function => arch_monitor_domctl_op.
e.g. X86-side handles XEN_DOMCTL_MONITOR_OP_EMULATE_EACH_REP op
* add arch-side monitor event handling function => arch_monitor_domctl_event.
e.g. X86-side handles XEN_DOMCTL_MONITOR_EVENT_MOV_TO_MSR event
enable/disable
* remove status_check
Signed-off-by: Corneliu ZUZU <cz...@bitdefender.com>
---
Changed since v3:
* monitor_domctl @ common/monitor.c:
- remove unused requested_status
- sanity check mop->event range to avoid left-shift undefined behavior
Due to left-shift undefined behavior situations, shouldn't I also:
* in X86 arch_monitor_get_capabilities: replace '1 <<' w/ '1U <<'
There's no undefinedness there, since the right side operands of
<< are all constant. Using 1U here would be okay, but is not
strictly needed.
I reasoned based on this ISO C99 quote:
[for an E1 << E2 operation, ]
"If E1 has a signed type and nonnegative value, and E1 × 2^E2 is
representable in the result type, then that is the resulting value;
otherwise, the behavior is undefined."
I inferred that this means that code such as '(1 << 31)' would render
undefined behavior, since (1 x 2^31) is not representable on 'int'.
The standard doesn't seem to mention different behavior if the operands
are constants.
This would render undefined behavior if bit 31 of capabilities would be
used @ some point, i.e. if one day someone would e.g. unknowingly:
#define XEN_DOMCTL_MONITOR_EVENT_GRAVITATIONAL_WAVE 31
Have I misinterpreted the 'representable in the result type' part?
* in X86 arch_monitor_domctl_event,
XEN_DOMCTL_MONITOR_EVENT_WRITE_CTRLREG case
add a sanity check of mop->u.mov_to_cr.index before:
unsigned int ctrlreg_bitmask =
monitor_ctrlreg_bitmask(mop->u.mov_to_cr.index);
, which basically translates to:
unsigned int ctrlreg_bitmask = (1U << mop->u.mov_to_cr.index);
? (especially since mop->u.mov_to_cr.index is set by the caller).
Yes, there a range check would be needed, but preferably as a
separate patch (as this has nothing to do with the code motion
you perform here).
Jan
Great, I'll do these changes in a separate patch then.
Let me know if you have any other comments on this.
Thanks,
Corneliu.
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
