On 23/05/2024 11:21, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 10:41:29AM +0100, Alejandro Vallejo wrote:
>> The idea is to use xc_cpu_policy_t as a single object containing both the
>> serialised and deserialised forms of the policy. Note that we need lengths
>> for the arrays, as the serialised policies may be shorter than the array
>> capacities.
>>
>> * Add the serialised lengths to the struct so we can distinguish
>>   between length and capacity of the serialisation buffers.
>> * Remove explicit buffer+lengths in serialise/deserialise calls
>>   and use the internal buffer inside xc_cpu_policy_t instead.
>> * Refactor everything to use the new serialisation functions.
>> * Remove redundant serialization calls and avoid allocating dynamic
>>   memory aside from the policy objects in xen-cpuid. Also minor cleanup
>>   in the policy print call sites.
>>
>> No functional change intended.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Alejandro Vallejo <alejandro.vall...@cloud.com>
> 
> Acked-by: Roger Pau Monné <roger....@citrix.com>
> 
> Just two comments.
> 
>> ---
>> v3:
>>   * Better context scoping in xg_sr_common_x86.
>>     * Can't be const because write_record() takes non-const.
>>   * Adjusted line length of xen-cpuid's print_policy.
>>   * Adjusted error messages in xen-cpuid's print_policy.
>>   * Reverted removal of overscoped loop indices.
>> ---
>>  tools/include/xenguest.h            |  8 ++-
>>  tools/libs/guest/xg_cpuid_x86.c     | 98 ++++++++++++++++++++---------
>>  tools/libs/guest/xg_private.h       |  2 +
>>  tools/libs/guest/xg_sr_common_x86.c | 56 ++++++-----------
>>  tools/misc/xen-cpuid.c              | 41 ++++--------
>>  5 files changed, 106 insertions(+), 99 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/include/xenguest.h b/tools/include/xenguest.h
>> index e01f494b772a..563811cd8dde 100644
>> --- a/tools/include/xenguest.h
>> +++ b/tools/include/xenguest.h
>> @@ -799,14 +799,16 @@ int xc_cpu_policy_set_domain(xc_interface *xch, 
>> uint32_t domid,
>>                               xc_cpu_policy_t *policy);
>>  
>>  /* Manipulate a policy via architectural representations. */
>> -int xc_cpu_policy_serialise(xc_interface *xch, const xc_cpu_policy_t 
>> *policy,
>> -                            xen_cpuid_leaf_t *leaves, uint32_t *nr_leaves,
>> -                            xen_msr_entry_t *msrs, uint32_t *nr_msrs);
>> +int xc_cpu_policy_serialise(xc_interface *xch, xc_cpu_policy_t *policy);
>>  int xc_cpu_policy_update_cpuid(xc_interface *xch, xc_cpu_policy_t *policy,
>>                                 const xen_cpuid_leaf_t *leaves,
>>                                 uint32_t nr);
>>  int xc_cpu_policy_update_msrs(xc_interface *xch, xc_cpu_policy_t *policy,
>>                                const xen_msr_entry_t *msrs, uint32_t nr);
>> +int xc_cpu_policy_get_leaves(xc_interface *xch, const xc_cpu_policy_t 
>> *policy,
>> +                             const xen_cpuid_leaf_t **leaves, uint32_t *nr);
>> +int xc_cpu_policy_get_msrs(xc_interface *xch, const xc_cpu_policy_t *policy,
>> +                           const xen_msr_entry_t **msrs, uint32_t *nr);
> 
> Maybe it would be helpful to have a comment clarifying that the return
> of xc_cpu_policy_get_{leaves,msrs}() is a reference to the content of
> the policy, not a copy of it (and hence is tied to the lifetime of
> policy, and doesn't require explicit freeing).

Sure.

> 
>>  
>>  /* Compatibility calculations. */
>>  bool xc_cpu_policy_is_compatible(xc_interface *xch, xc_cpu_policy_t *host,
>> diff --git a/tools/libs/guest/xg_cpuid_x86.c 
>> b/tools/libs/guest/xg_cpuid_x86.c
>> index 4453178100ad..4f4b86b59470 100644
>> --- a/tools/libs/guest/xg_cpuid_x86.c
>> +++ b/tools/libs/guest/xg_cpuid_x86.c
>> @@ -834,14 +834,13 @@ void xc_cpu_policy_destroy(xc_cpu_policy_t *policy)
>>      }
>>  }
>>  
>> -static int deserialize_policy(xc_interface *xch, xc_cpu_policy_t *policy,
>> -                              unsigned int nr_leaves, unsigned int 
>> nr_entries)
>> +static int deserialize_policy(xc_interface *xch, xc_cpu_policy_t *policy)
>>  {
>>      uint32_t err_leaf = -1, err_subleaf = -1, err_msr = -1;
>>      int rc;
>>  
>>      rc = x86_cpuid_copy_from_buffer(&policy->policy, policy->leaves,
>> -                                    nr_leaves, &err_leaf, &err_subleaf);
>> +                                    policy->nr_leaves, &err_leaf, 
>> &err_subleaf);
>>      if ( rc )
>>      {
>>          if ( err_leaf != -1 )
>> @@ -851,7 +850,7 @@ static int deserialize_policy(xc_interface *xch, 
>> xc_cpu_policy_t *policy,
>>      }
>>  
>>      rc = x86_msr_copy_from_buffer(&policy->policy, policy->msrs,
>> -                                  nr_entries, &err_msr);
>> +                                  policy->nr_msrs, &err_msr);
>>      if ( rc )
>>      {
>>          if ( err_msr != -1 )
>> @@ -878,7 +877,10 @@ int xc_cpu_policy_get_system(xc_interface *xch, 
>> unsigned int policy_idx,
>>          return rc;
>>      }
>>  
>> -    rc = deserialize_policy(xch, policy, nr_leaves, nr_msrs);
>> +    policy->nr_leaves = nr_leaves;
>> +    policy->nr_msrs = nr_msrs;
>> +
>> +    rc = deserialize_policy(xch, policy);
>>      if ( rc )
>>      {
>>          errno = -rc;
>> @@ -903,7 +905,10 @@ int xc_cpu_policy_get_domain(xc_interface *xch, 
>> uint32_t domid,
>>          return rc;
>>      }
>>  
>> -    rc = deserialize_policy(xch, policy, nr_leaves, nr_msrs);
>> +    policy->nr_leaves = nr_leaves;
>> +    policy->nr_msrs = nr_msrs;
>> +
>> +    rc = deserialize_policy(xch, policy);
>>      if ( rc )
>>      {
>>          errno = -rc;
>> @@ -917,17 +922,14 @@ int xc_cpu_policy_set_domain(xc_interface *xch, 
>> uint32_t domid,
>>                               xc_cpu_policy_t *policy)
>>  {
>>      uint32_t err_leaf = -1, err_subleaf = -1, err_msr = -1;
>> -    unsigned int nr_leaves = ARRAY_SIZE(policy->leaves);
>> -    unsigned int nr_msrs = ARRAY_SIZE(policy->msrs);
>>      int rc;
>>  
>> -    rc = xc_cpu_policy_serialise(xch, policy, policy->leaves, &nr_leaves,
>> -                                 policy->msrs, &nr_msrs);
>> +    rc = xc_cpu_policy_serialise(xch, policy);
>>      if ( rc )
>>          return rc;
>>  
>> -    rc = xc_set_domain_cpu_policy(xch, domid, nr_leaves, policy->leaves,
>> -                                  nr_msrs, policy->msrs,
>> +    rc = xc_set_domain_cpu_policy(xch, domid, policy->nr_leaves, 
>> policy->leaves,
>> +                                  policy->nr_msrs, policy->msrs,
>>                                    &err_leaf, &err_subleaf, &err_msr);
>>      if ( rc )
>>      {
>> @@ -942,34 +944,32 @@ int xc_cpu_policy_set_domain(xc_interface *xch, 
>> uint32_t domid,
>>      return rc;
>>  }
>>  
>> -int xc_cpu_policy_serialise(xc_interface *xch, const xc_cpu_policy_t *p,
>> -                            xen_cpuid_leaf_t *leaves, uint32_t *nr_leaves,
>> -                            xen_msr_entry_t *msrs, uint32_t *nr_msrs)
>> +int xc_cpu_policy_serialise(xc_interface *xch, xc_cpu_policy_t *p)
>>  {
>> +    unsigned int nr_leaves = ARRAY_SIZE(p->leaves);
>> +    unsigned int nr_msrs = ARRAY_SIZE(p->msrs);
>>      int rc;
>>  
>> -    if ( leaves )
>> +    rc = x86_cpuid_copy_to_buffer(&p->policy, p->leaves, &nr_leaves);
>> +    if ( rc )
>>      {
>> -        rc = x86_cpuid_copy_to_buffer(&p->policy, leaves, nr_leaves);
>> -        if ( rc )
>> -        {
>> -            ERROR("Failed to serialize CPUID policy");
>> -            errno = -rc;
>> -            return -1;
>> -        }
>> +        ERROR("Failed to serialize CPUID policy");
>> +        errno = -rc;
>> +        return -1;
>>      }
>>  
>> -    if ( msrs )
>> +    p->nr_leaves = nr_leaves;
> 
> Nit: FWIW, I think you could avoid having to introduce local
> nr_{leaves,msrs} variables and just use p->nr_{leaves,msrs}?  By
> setting them to ARRAY_SIZE() at the top of the function and then
> letting x86_{cpuid,msr}_copy_to_buffer() adjust as necessary.
> 
> Thanks, Roger.

The intent was to avoid mutating the policy object in the error cases
during deserialise. Then I adjusted the serialise case to have symmetry.

It's true the preservation is not meaningful in the serialise case
because at that point the serialised form is already corrupted.

I don't mind either way. Seeing how I'm sending one final version with
the comments of patch2 I'll just adjust as you proposed.

Cheers,
Alejandro

Reply via email to