From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Razvan Cojocaru <rcojocaru@bitdefender.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 1/3] xen/mem_access: Support for
 memory-content hiding
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 16:21:01 +0300
Message-ID: <559BD23D.7090006@bitdefender.com>
References: <1436197873-4559-1-git-send-email-rcojocaru@bitdefender.com>
	<1436197873-4559-2-git-send-email-rcojocaru@bitdefender.com>
	<CAD33N+5d0-ypEjEhD9Uwc-ShDU=f-+EFMAJX5HXuc0xQqVvHwg@mail.gmail.com>
	<559AC880.3070406@bitdefender.com>
	<CAD33N+5uGh+iOkNkkOUYj5ceOLYKpcA6_qBh_-Meec_krXH7WA@mail.gmail.com>
	<559B8989.3030001@bitdefender.com>
	<CAD33N+4kN7tiSK8gEePikZcpVL2FqxwsTJDLzfmVbQ3zZr9F7A@mail.gmail.com>
	<559BCF7C.9010001@bitdefender.com>
	<CAD33N+5Kt92tpbn1901ygY+A7ZDdZ5gHoV-pZVZmruNHqzvHwg@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+5Kt92tpbn1901ygY+A7ZDdZ5gHoV-pZVZmruNHqzvHwg@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 07/07/2015 04:15 PM, Lengyel, Tamas wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 9:09 AM, Razvan Cojocaru
> <rcojocaru@bitdefender.com <mailto:rcojocaru@bitdefender.com>> wrote:
> 
>     So VM_EVENT_FLAG_FOREIGN (1 << 1), and then MEM_ACCESS_EMULATE (1 << 6).
>     Now you're adding VM_EVENT_FLAG_TOGGLE_SINGLESTEP (1 << 2), and if we're
>     not very careful, slowly but surely the VM_EVENT_FLAG_ constants will
>     crawl towards (1 << 6) and start overlapping with MEM_ACCESS_EMULATE,
>     MEM_ACCESS_EMULATE_NOWRITE and so on, because they're not clearly
>     #defined right after the rest of the VM_EVENT_FLAG_ ones, are called
>     MEM_ACCESS_<something> just like the mem_access event specific flags,
>     and they use bit shifts relative to the MEM_ACCESS_ ones as well. This
>     is in part what has caused my confusion here.
> 
>     What do you think?
> 
>     Thanks,
>     Razvan
> 
> 
> Well, this is clearly an oversight that we need to fix. MEM_ACCESS_*
> flags should be only set on the mem_access flags field.

Right, if there are no objections, I'll just submit a small patch (in a
few minutes) that moves MEM_ACCESS_EMULATE and
MEM_ACCESS_EMULATE_NOWRITE up near the VM_EVENT_FLAG_ constants, and
renames them VM_EVENT_FLAG_EMULATE and VM_EVENT_FLAG_EMULATE_NOWRITE.

It seems like this would be a pretty straightforward change, so I assume
it's likely to go in fast.


Thanks,
Razvan