Re: Blocking CR and MSR writes via mem_access?

[Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1292 bytes --]

On 07/10/14 13:46, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 2:40 PM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com
> <mailto:JBeulich@suse.com>> wrote:
>
>     >>> On 07.10.14 at 14:30, <tamas.lengyel@zentific.com <mailto:tamas.lengyel@zentific.com>> wrote:
>     > IMHO that entire struct is in dire need of a cleanup. It is
>     really hacky to
>     > have fields like gla and gfn transfer values that mean different
>     things
>     > under different event type that don't have anything to do with
>     gla/gfn.
>     > It's sort of just a legacy struct from the time when we only had
>     EPT events
>     > and everything else just got hacked on top. I would be in favor
>     of having
>     > the struct as a union of substructs that nicely define all the
>     values that
>     > are transferred in the given context, with meaningful struct
>     member names.
>
>     And the whole thing isn't just "mem-event" anymore either ...
>
>     Jan
>
>
> And that as well =) The whole mem_access and mem_event distinction is
> also pretty blurry. Might worth coming up with a better name while
> also combining the two into something more consistent.. xen-events
> perhaps?
>
> Tamas
>

The "xen" ought to be explicit given the prefix on the hypercalls. 
"vm-events" as a name?

~Andrew

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 2831 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 126 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel