On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Julien Grall <julien.gr...@arm.com> wrote: > Hi Tamas, > > On 02/09/2017 06:11 PM, Tamas K Lengyel wrote: >> >> On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 5:08 PM, Julien Grall <julien.gr...@arm.com> wrote: >>> >>> On 08/02/2017 23:28, Tamas K Lengyel wrote: >>>> >>>> On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Julien Grall <julien.gr...@arm.com> >>>> wrote: >>> >>> You haven't understood my point. Xen is currently emulating PSCI call for >>> the guest to allow powering up and down the CPUs and other stuff. If you >>> decide to trap all the SMCs, you would have to handle them. >> >> >> Sure, it's more work on the monitor side, but other then that, what's >> the problem? > > > Because you will have to introduce hypercalls to get all the necessary > information from Xen that will not be available from outside. > > Given that SMC has been designed to target different services (PSCI, Trusted > OS...) it would be normal to have monitor app only monitoring a certain set > of SMC call. You cannot deny a such use case as it would avoid an monitor > app to handle every single call that would be consumed by XEN but not > forwarded to the secure firmware. >
I have nothing against introducing a fine-tune option to the SMC monitoring system so the monitor app can determine if it wants all SMCs or only a subset. At the moment I don't know of any usecase that would require this option. I certainly don't need it. If this option gets implemented by someone, I would be happy to take it. Tamas _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel