[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH V3 3/3] xen/vm_event: Deny register writes if refused by vm_event reply
- To: "Lengyel, Tamas" <tlengyel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- From: Razvan Cojocaru <rcojocaru@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 12:06:28 +0300
- Cc: Jun Nakajima <jun.nakajima@xxxxxxxxx>, Wei Liu <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx>, kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx, keir@xxxxxxx, Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>, Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, eddie.dong@xxxxxxxxx, Xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Aravind.Gopalakrishnan@xxxxxxx, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>, suravee.suthikulpanit@xxxxxxx, boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx, Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Comment: DomainKeys? See http://domainkeys.sourceforge.net/
- Delivery-date: Tue, 07 Jul 2015 09:06:06 +0000
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=bitdefender.com; b=m645UVqdYYZT93gQaGB1V94mSITQ55B7VAOzuoG4hXvzAwFnZX/2uBpPLj9Yo0Y5hjx7AXLLlrbhEUm83cNwFKTEvoDRW7kql0JEh8PxzYbyBjXmKwGnDlKMIZaVzxtwA74cnFfXpsY2q43b8/gYZSGVn53gWf4MFyr/K10oc4gFO4WuHPX0NkVJgnf1ZyCWEW+mrmBFC1fGdGvODxg8vxZ0xonXVIcteOCocFy/RJJWKd2xJro9ra8e4xz4ccl97KCD8KXjstpDYDZJPzDh3c5aP3dLL6/SeEqztQlRQQFTBPtyQnNcWBWxDoZdjCX1uZ+bVlh8E0BDYRV/txyBlQ==; h=Received:Received:Received:Received:Received:Subject:To:References:Cc:From:X-Enigmail-Draft-Status:Message-ID:Date:User-Agent:MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-BitDefender-Scanner:X-BitDefender-Spam:X-BitDefender-SpamStamp:X-BitDefender-CF-Stamp;
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xen.org>
On 07/06/2015 08:05 PM, Lengyel, Tamas wrote:
> @@ -410,6 +414,8 @@ void vm_event_resume(struct domain *d, struct
> vm_event_domain *ved)
>
>
> #ifdef HAS_MEM_ACCESS
> case VM_EVENT_REASON_MEM_ACCESS:
> + case VM_EVENT_REASON_MOV_TO_MSR:
> + case VM_EVENT_REASON_WRITE_CTRLREG:
>
>
> This doesn't really make much sense to be associated with MEM_ACCESS.
> I'm adding a separate arch-specific vm_event file in my other singlestep
> patch, I think these should trigger their appropriate handler there, not
> in mem_access_resume.
As said, I very much agree with the suggestion, but I don't see your
patch in staging yet.
Should I either (with the goal of ideally making the 4.6 release, and of
course unless somebody else has other issues with the patch or this
specific change):
* Add the new file your patch added again in my patch;
* If it's about to be commited soon (?) wait for your patch to make it
into staging (this I think would be the best path, if possible), or
* Leave it as it is for now and follow up post-4.6?
Thanks,
Razvan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
