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

[Xen-devel] wrong vmexit size in xenalyze

To: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Xen-devel] wrong vmexit size in xenalyze
From: Olaf Hering <olaf@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 10:23:17 +0100
Cc: George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 01:24:14 -0800
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1290158605; l=1170; s=domk; d=aepfle.de; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:X-RZG-CLASS-ID: X-RZG-AUTH; bh=34QbYsTC054pymuNbz/JagJVoSM=; b=bdNm+oUJfjt17/MIra2Wc/1zWrcgzkjYeTUzo+1Ku4UFNrfPBOu7JRNidu4URP/K/+E J/wb2AXEubYD9NWJ4aDAaG94GZAW5ByGGaiJAXjRM1ZlfY3Ct1T+mc9oQbsY8qYR8DRYd bbhfYciCAcFipvf7Wt7BLxQocOuP6kjJWpo=
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
George,

what is the reason behind this changeset?
http://xenbits.xensource.com/ext/xenalyze.hg?rev/9fa7e4d2a3af

All my vmexit trace entries have size 4 for 64bit and 3 for 32bit.
Looking at the code in ./xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c, HVMTRACE_ND() gets
size 3 for VMEXIT64. But HVMTRACE_ND does a 'sizeof(u32)*count+1' in
xen-4.0. 
The xen-unstable macro looks different. It was changed in this revision:

 # 8 weeks ago:    x86/hvm: fix extra size passed to __trace_var()
 # revision 10:    9cebb977e9d8 (diff) (annotate)
 # author:         Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxx>
 # date:   Mon Sep 20 18:53:18 2010 +0100

I think this means most of the extra_words checks are bogus now, unless
the same change also goes into the 4.0 branch.

What should we do about this difference in tracedata?


Olaf

--- a/xenalyze.c        Wed Nov 10 14:56:56 2010 +0000
+++ b/xenalyze.c        Wed Nov 10 14:58:31 2010 +0000
@@ -4828,8 +4828,8 @@ void hvm_vmexit_process(struct record_in
         };
     } *r;
 
-    if(ri->extra_words != 4
-       && ri->extra_words != 3
+    if(ri->extra_words != 3
+       && ri->extra_words != 2
         )
     {
         fprintf(warn, "FATAL: vmexit has unexpected extra words %d!\n",


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

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