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] Re: [PATCH 5/7] mm: New XENMEM space, XENMAPSPACE_gmfn_range

>>> On 10.11.11 at 16:44, Jean Guyader <jean.guyader@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 10/11 12:47, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 10.11.11 at 12:35, Jean Guyader <jean.guyader@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >@@ -4716,6 +4748,17 @@ long arch_memory_op(int op, XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(void) 
> arg)
>> >         }
>> > 
>> >         rc = xenmem_add_to_physmap(d, &xatp);
>> >+        if ( rc == -EAGAIN )
>> 
>>         if ( rc )
>> 
>> >+        {
>> >+            if ( copy_to_guest(arg, &xatp, 1) )
>> >+            {
>> >+                rcu_unlock_domain(d);
>> >+                return -EFAULT;
>> >+            }
>> 
>>         }
>>         if ( rc == -EAGAIN )
>> 
>> (with some room for further simplification). Without that (or the minimal
>> alternative of copying back just .size or yet some other mechanism), as
>> pointed out before, the caller won't have a way to know how far into
>> the batch things succeeded.
>> 
>> >+
>> >+            rc = hypercall_create_continuation(
>> >+                    __HYPERVISOR_memory_op, "ih", op, arg);
>> >+        }
>> > 
>> >         rcu_unlock_domain(d);
>> 
>> Also, the whole block above can be move past this rcu_unlock_domain(),
>> eliminating the need to do it separately in the above error path(s).
>> 
>> > 
>> >--- a/xen/arch/x86/x86_64/compat/mm.c
>> >+++ b/xen/arch/x86/x86_64/compat/mm.c
>> >@@ -63,6 +63,18 @@ int compat_arch_memory_op(int op, XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(void) 
> arg)
>> > 
>> >         XLAT_add_to_physmap(nat, &cmp);
>> >         rc = arch_memory_op(op, guest_handle_from_ptr(nat, void));
>> >+        if ( rc < 0 )
>> >+            break;
>> >+
>> 
>> With the way the code below is currently this is superfluous. But just
>> as above you will need to provide some indication to the caller
>> *where* the failure occurred.
>> 
>> >+        if ( rc == __HYPERVISOR_memory_op )
>> >+        {
>> >+            hypercall_xlat_continuation(NULL, 0x2, nat, arg);
>> >+
>> >+            XLAT_add_to_physmap(&cmp, nat);
>> >+
>> >+            if ( copy_to_guest(arg, &cmp, 1) )
>> >+                return -EFAULT;
>> 
>> I realize that this is the same way in the code handling
>> XENMEM_[gs]et_pod_target, but unfortunately that's wrong (that's
>> why I'm copying you, George): Once a continuation was set up, you
>> mustn't change the return value anymore, since the continuation was
>> established by adjusting the guest's rIP.
>> 
>> As for other memory ops, the continuation can be encoded in "op" (see
>> xen/common/memory.c and xen/common/compat/memory.c). However,
>> while suitable here I don't think that's usable for the PoD variant. The
>> alternative is to cancel the continuation (would require quite a bit of
>> new code I think) or to adjust the low level hypercall handler code (at
>> least the compat mode one) to special case rAX values in the negative
>> errno range, leaving rAX unchanged instead of returning -ENOSYS.
>> Keir?
>> 
> 
> Jan, did you have something like the attached patch in mind?

Indeed, and it's fortunately much simpler than I would have thought.

> We will return EFAULT to the hypercall without touching the guest memory
> because the copy_to_guest failed.
> 
> For the example I ignored the multicalls.

Adding the support for that would seem to be strait forward too.

Jan


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

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