Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 3/6] x86: Handle the Xen MSRs via the new guest_{rd, wr}msr() infrastructure

[Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 05:35:16PM +0000, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> Dispatch from the guest_{rd,wr}msr() functions, after falling through from the
> !is_viridian_domain() case.
> 
> Rename {rd,wr}msr_hypervisor_regs() to guest_{rd,wr}msr_xen() for consistency,
> and because the _regs suffix isn't very appropriate.
> 
> Update them to take a vcpu pointer rather than presuming that they act on
> current, and switch to using X86EMUL_* return values.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>

Reviewed-by: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>

> diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/msr.c b/xen/arch/x86/msr.c
> index 2ff9361..9f20fd8 100644
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/msr.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/msr.c
> @@ -183,6 +183,10 @@ int guest_rdmsr(const struct vcpu *v, uint32_t msr, 
> uint64_t *val)
>          }
>  
>          /* Fallthrough. */
> +    case 0x40000200 ... 0x400002ff:
> +        ret = guest_rdmsr_xen(v, msr, val);
> +        goto out;
> +
>      default:
>          return X86EMUL_UNHANDLEABLE;
>      }
> @@ -274,6 +278,10 @@ int guest_wrmsr(struct vcpu *v, uint32_t msr, uint64_t 
> val)
>          }
>  
>          /* Fallthrough. */
> +    case 0x40000200 ... 0x400002ff:

A define would be better in order to prevent this two values from
getting out of sync with the ones in rdmsr maybe.

Thanks, Roger.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel