On 05/03/2016 11:14 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 29.04.16 at 18:12, <rcojoc...@bitdefender.com> wrote:
>> On 04/09/16 08:54, Razvan Cojocaru wrote:
>>> It is meaningless (and potentially dangerous - see
>>> hvmemul_virtual_to_linear())
>>> to set mem_access_emulate_each_rep before xc_monitor_enable() (which
>>> allocates
>>> vcpu->arch.vm_event) has been called, so return an error from the
>>> XEN_DOMCTL_MONITOR_OP_EMULATE_EACH_REP hypercall when that is the case.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Razvan Cojocaru <rcojoc...@bitdefender.com>
>>> Reviewed-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citirx.com>
>>>
>>> ---
>>> Changes since V2:
>>> - Updated the if() condition as recommended by Andrew Cooper.
>>> - Added Andrew Cooper's Reviewed-by.
>>> ---
>>> xen/include/asm-x86/monitor.h | 16 +++++++++++++---
>>> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/xen/include/asm-x86/monitor.h b/xen/include/asm-x86/monitor.h
>>> index 0954b59..d367099 100644
>>> --- a/xen/include/asm-x86/monitor.h
>>> +++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/monitor.h
>>> @@ -32,19 +32,29 @@
>>> static inline
>>> int arch_monitor_domctl_op(struct domain *d, struct xen_domctl_monitor_op
>>> *mop)
>>> {
>>> + int rc = 0;
>>> +
>>> switch ( mop->op )
>>> {
>>> case XEN_DOMCTL_MONITOR_OP_EMULATE_EACH_REP:
>>> domain_pause(d);
>>> - d->arch.mem_access_emulate_each_rep = !!mop->event;
>>> + /*
>>> + * Enabling mem_access_emulate_each_rep without a vm_event
>>> subscriber
>>> + * is meaningless.
>>> + */
>>> + if ( d->max_vcpus && d->vcpu[0] && d->vcpu[0]->arch.vm_event )
>>> + d->arch.mem_access_emulate_each_rep = !!mop->event;
>>> + else
>>> + rc = -EINVAL;
>>> +
>>> domain_unpause(d);
>>> break;
>>>
>>> default:
>>> - return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>>> + rc = -EOPNOTSUPP;
>>> }
>>>
>>> - return 0;
>>> + return rc;
>>> }
>>>
>>> int arch_monitor_domctl_event(struct domain *d,
>>
>> According to the previous list discussion with Andrew Cooper, this fix
>> might be considered for the 4.7 release, so CC-ing Wei for a release
>> ack, as suggested.
>
> Even if - without the pending ./MAINTAINERS adjustment - not
> formally required, I don't understand why you didn't Cc Tamas on
> this patch. I don't think this should go in without his ack.
Of course, I was under the impression that he was in the recipients list
(I let scripts/maintaners.pl do the work and didn't pay much attention
to its output).
By all means.
Thanks,
Razvan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
