Re: [PATCH RFC V3 3/5] xen: Force-enable relevant MSR events; optimize the number of sent MSR events

[Razvan Cojocaru <rcojocaru@bitdefender.com>]

On 07/24/2014 06:14 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 23.07.14 at 14:34, <rcojocaru@bitdefender.com> wrote:
>> @@ -695,11 +696,34 @@ static void vmx_set_host_env(struct vcpu *v)
>>  void vmx_disable_intercept_for_msr(struct vcpu *v, u32 msr, int type)
>>  {
>>      unsigned long *msr_bitmap = v->arch.hvm_vmx.msr_bitmap;
>> +    struct domain *d = v->domain;
>>  
>>      /* VMX MSR bitmap supported? */
>>      if ( msr_bitmap == NULL )
>>          return;
>>  
>> +    if ( mem_event_check_ring(&d->mem_event->access) )
>> +    {
>> +        /* Filter out MSR-s needed for memory introspection */
>> +        switch ( msr )
>> +        {
>> +        case MSR_IA32_SYSENTER_EIP:
>> +        case MSR_IA32_SYSENTER_ESP:
>> +        case MSR_IA32_SYSENTER_CS:
>> +        case MSR_IA32_MC0_CTL:
>> +        case MSR_STAR:
>> +        case MSR_LSTAR:
>> +
>> +            gdprintk(XENLOG_DEBUG, "MSR 0x%08x "
> 
> Is the current domain/vCPU really useful in this message? And
> do you really need the file name to be printed here? And does the
> MSR number really need to always be 8 characters wide? Or
> perhaps - is this message useful at all?

I thought so, but since it is indeed a minor thing I'll be happy to
remove it.


Thanks,
Razvan Cojocaru