From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 4/9] x86/hvm: loosen up the ASSERT in
 hvm_cr4_guest_reserved_bits and hvm_efer_valid
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2015 11:37:26 +0000
Message-ID: <5666C0F6.5030802@citrix.com>
References: <1449506917-26426-1-git-send-email-roger.pau@citrix.com>
	<1449506917-26426-5-git-send-email-roger.pau@citrix.com>
	<5666A2C302000078000BD0A9@prv-mh.provo.novell.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
Received: from mail6.bemta5.messagelabs.com ([195.245.231.135])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <prvs=7772440c6=Andrew.Cooper3@citrix.com>)
	id 1a6Gar-0005nm-If
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Tue, 08 Dec 2015 11:38:05 +0000
In-Reply-To: <5666A2C302000078000BD0A9@prv-mh.provo.novell.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: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>, Roger Pau Monne <roger.pau@citrix.com>
Cc: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 08/12/15 08:28, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 07.12.15 at 17:48, <roger.pau@citrix.com> wrote:
>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
>> @@ -1842,7 +1842,7 @@ static const char * hvm_efer_valid(const struct vcpu *v, uint64_t value,
>>      {
>>          unsigned int level;
>>  
>> -        ASSERT(v == current);
>> +        ASSERT(v->domain == current->domain);
>>          hvm_cpuid(0x80000000, &level, NULL, NULL, NULL);
>>          if ( level >= 0x80000001 )
>>          {
>> @@ -1912,7 +1912,7 @@ static unsigned long hvm_cr4_guest_reserved_bits(const struct vcpu *v,
>>      {
>>          unsigned int level;
>>  
>> -        ASSERT(v == current);
>> +        ASSERT(v->domain == current->domain);
>>          hvm_cpuid(0, &level, NULL, NULL, NULL);
>>          if ( level >= 1 )
>>              hvm_cpuid(1, NULL, NULL, &leaf1_ecx, &leaf1_edx);
> The only reason both functions get v passed are the two ASSERT()s.
> Relaxing them means you should now be passing a const struct
> domain * instead.

v is correct here.  cpuid information is genuinely per-vcpu, although
this isn't currently reflected in Xen's understanding of the matter.

Part of my further cpuid improvements will be to fix Xen's
understanding. i.e. domain_cpuid() will soon start taking a vcpu parameter.

~Andrew