WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC] x86: more debugging adjustments

To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>, <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC] x86: more debugging adjustments
From: Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 14:50:57 +0000
Delivery-date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 06:51:55 -0800
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <4745893A.76E4.0078.0@xxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: AcgtFxbLVUdSOpkKEdybPwAX8io7RQ==
Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] [RFC] x86: more debugging adjustments
User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.3.6.070618
Inject-sstep: Looks fine in principle. A few specific questions:
 * Why is all the RFLAGS.RF logic removed from platform.c?
 * Why is DR6 adjustment done in svm_hvm_inject_exception() rather than
svm_inject_exception() (to match vmx_inject_exception())?
 * Why do some instruction emulations pass NULL to update_guest_eip() and
hence bypass #DB injection? That seems bogus.

Io-brkp: This one needs more explanation about exactly what things are being
improved. There's more going on here than your brief explanation below. My
only comment at this point is that I don't see that supporting CR4.DE==0 is
very useful. I don't subscribe to the view that we should support every
little detail of x86 architecture just because it's there, especially for PV
guests.

All other patches are applied and I queued up a couple for 3.1.3 also.

 -- Keir

On 22/11/07 12:50, "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Apart from the cleanup patches just sent I also have two bigger ones in
> the queue. I'm not certain they qualify for 3.2 at this point, though: While
> most of them can be considered enhancements, the io-brkp one (which
> depends on the inject-sstep one) also fixes the issue of guests on x86-64
> not being able to utilize 8-byte breakpoints, and it reduces the likelihood
> of needing to restore the debug registers by only looking at the enable
> bits in the respective conditions (as HVM was already doing).
> 
> Therefore I'd like to understand whether these patches can go in in their
> current shape, or whether I should split out at least the 8-byte bug fix
> and submit this separately.
> 
> Thanks, Jan
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>