From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Razvan Cojocaru <rcojocaru@bitdefender.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 3/3] xen/vm_event: Deny register writes
 if refused by vm_event reply
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 12:06:28 +0300
Message-ID: <559B9694.7040203@bitdefender.com>
References: <1436197873-4559-1-git-send-email-rcojocaru@bitdefender.com>
	<1436197873-4559-4-git-send-email-rcojocaru@bitdefender.com>
	<CAD33N+64r6D_Aj1e-BDXoAvFR6VeWxpRSRZte-JoLNy9sPLcPg@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAD33N+64r6D_Aj1e-BDXoAvFR6VeWxpRSRZte-JoLNy9sPLcPg@mail.gmail.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: "Lengyel, Tamas" <tlengyel@novetta.com>
Cc: Jun Nakajima <jun.nakajima@intel.com>, Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>, kevin.tian@intel.com, keir@xen.org, Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>, Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>, George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>, eddie.dong@intel.com, Xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>, Aravind.Gopalakrishnan@amd.com, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>, suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com, boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com, Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 07/06/2015 08:05 PM, Lengyel, Tamas wrote:
> @@ -410,6 +414,8 @@ void vm_event_resume(struct domain *d, struct
> vm_event_domain *ved)
> 
> 
>      #ifdef HAS_MEM_ACCESS
>              case VM_EVENT_REASON_MEM_ACCESS:
>     +        case VM_EVENT_REASON_MOV_TO_MSR:
>     +        case VM_EVENT_REASON_WRITE_CTRLREG:
> 
> 
> This doesn't really make much sense to be associated with MEM_ACCESS.
> I'm adding a separate arch-specific vm_event file in my other singlestep
> patch, I think these should trigger their appropriate handler there, not
> in mem_access_resume.

As said, I very much agree with the suggestion, but I don't see your
patch in staging yet.

Should I either (with the goal of ideally making the 4.6 release, and of
course unless somebody else has other issues with the patch or this
specific change):

* Add the new file your patch added again in my patch;

* If it's about to be commited soon (?) wait for your patch to make it
into staging (this I think would be the best path, if possible), or

* Leave it as it is for now and follow up post-4.6?


Thanks,
Razvan