Re: [PATCH v4 08/10] x86/domctl: add XEN_DOMCTL_vmtrace_op

["Roger Pau Monné" <roger.pau@citrix.com>]

On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 02:33:51PM +0200, Michał Leszczyński wrote:
> From: Michal Leszczynski <michal.leszczynski@cert.pl>
> 
> Implement domctl to manage the runtime state of
> processor trace feature.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Michal Leszczynski <michal.leszczynski@cert.pl>
> ---
>  xen/arch/x86/domctl.c       | 48 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  xen/include/public/domctl.h | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 74 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/domctl.c b/xen/arch/x86/domctl.c
> index 6f2c69788d..a041b724d8 100644
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/domctl.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/domctl.c
> @@ -322,6 +322,48 @@ void arch_get_domain_info(const struct domain *d,
>      info->arch_config.emulation_flags = d->arch.emulation_flags;
>  }
>  
> +static int do_vmtrace_op(struct domain *d, struct xen_domctl_vmtrace_op *op,
> +                         XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(xen_domctl_t) u_domctl)
> +{
> +    int rc;
> +    struct vcpu *v;
> +
> +    if ( !vmtrace_supported )
> +        return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> +
> +    if ( !is_hvm_domain(d) )
> +        return -EOPNOTSUPP;

You can join both checks.

> +
> +    if ( op->vcpu >= d->max_vcpus )
> +        return -EINVAL;
> +
> +    v = domain_vcpu(d, op->vcpu);
> +    rc = 0;

No need to init rc to zero, after the switch below it will always be
initialized.

> +
> +    switch ( op->cmd )
> +    {
> +    case XEN_DOMCTL_vmtrace_pt_enable:
> +    case XEN_DOMCTL_vmtrace_pt_disable:
> +        vcpu_pause(v);
> +        spin_lock(&d->vmtrace_lock);
> +
> +        rc = vmtrace_control_pt(v, op->cmd == XEN_DOMCTL_vmtrace_pt_enable);
> +
> +        spin_unlock(&d->vmtrace_lock);
> +        vcpu_unpause(v);
> +        break;
> +
> +    case XEN_DOMCTL_vmtrace_pt_get_offset:
> +        rc = vmtrace_get_pt_offset(v, &op->offset);

Since you don't pause the vcpu here, I think you want to use atomic
operations to update v->arch.hvm.vmx.pt_state->output_mask.raw, or
else you could see inconsistent results if a vmexit is updating it in
parallel? (since you don't pause the target vcpu).

Thanks, Roger.