From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Mukesh Rathor <mukesh.rathor@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [V8 PATCH 7/8] pvh dom0: add check for pvh in
	vioapic_range
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2014 18:00:23 -0700
Message-ID: <20140407180023.14827470@mantra.us.oracle.com>
References: <1395452357-1598-1-git-send-email-mukesh.rathor@oracle.com>
	<1395452357-1598-8-git-send-email-mukesh.rathor@oracle.com>
	<53300A4102000078000013D1@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
	<533ACFDD.8010504@eu.citrix.com>
	<533AF2BB0200007800004407@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
	<20140404180049.77637164@mantra.us.oracle.com>
	<5342690E0200007800005F82@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
	<53426FD2.2060806@eu.citrix.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
Received: from mail6.bemta5.messagelabs.com ([195.245.231.135])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <mukesh.rathor@oracle.com>) id 1WXKP1-0002zo-Ot
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Tue, 08 Apr 2014 01:00:40 +0000
In-Reply-To: <53426FD2.2060806@eu.citrix.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>
Cc: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>, tim@xen.org, eddie.dong@intel.com, keir.xen@gmail.com, jun.nakajima@intel.com, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On Mon, 7 Apr 2014 10:28:50 +0100
George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com> wrote:

> On 04/07/2014 07:59 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>>> On 05.04.14 at 03:00, <mukesh.rathor@oracle.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 16:09:15 +0100
> >> "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>> On 01.04.14 at 16:40, <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
> >>>> On 03/24/2014 09:34 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 22.03.14 at 02:39, <mukesh.rathor@oracle.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vioapic.c
> >>>>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vioapic.c
> >>>>>> @@ -238,8 +238,13 @@ static int vioapic_write(
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>    static int vioapic_range(struct vcpu *v, unsigned long addr)
> >>>>>>    {
> >>>>>> -    struct hvm_hw_vioapic *vioapic =
> >>>>>> domain_vioapic(v->domain);
> >>>>>> +    struct hvm_hw_vioapic *vioapic;
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> +    /* pvh uses event channel callback */
> >>>>>> +    if ( is_pvh_vcpu(v) )
> >>>>>> +        return 0;
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> +    vioapic = domain_vioapic(v->domain);
> >>>>> I can see why the extra check is needed, but I can't see why you
> >>>>> convert the initializer to an assignment: Afaict
> >>>>> domain_vioapic() is safe even if d->arch.hvm_domain.vioapic ==
> >>>>> NULL.
> >>>> Or better yet, just make it something like:
> >>>>
> >>>> return vioapic && ((addr >= [...original range check]))
> >>>>
> >>>> That way we don't have to have a PVH-specific hook at all.  If a
> >>>> domain doesn't have a vioapic for any reason, return 0.
> >>> No, vioapic isn't going to be NULL for PVH:
> >>>
> >>> #define domain_vioapic(d)
> >>> (&(d)->arch.hvm_domain.vioapic->hvm_hw_vioapic)
> >> No, viopaic is NULL for PVH, hence the patch. So, can prob just
> >> check for the ptr like George suggests and remove the pvh check.
> > Sorry, no - I agree that d->arch.hvm_domain.vioapic is NULL for
> > PVH, but that doesn't mean the result of domain_vioapic(d) is too
> > (see the quoted #define above).
> 
> I interpreted Mukesh saying "check for the ptr" as, "check 
> d->arch_hvm.domain.vioapic", not "check domain_vioapic(d)".

Correct. Since, vioapic is NULL for PVH, domain_vioapic(d) will
result in NULL ptr exception for PVH, so we can't call that macro
for PVH.

thanks
Mukesh