From: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
Xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] xen/x86: Introduce a new VMASSIST for architectural behaviour of iopl
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 10:45:32 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <56EA8ACC.2080102@citrix.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <56EA941102000078000DDB1E@prv-mh.provo.novell.com>
On 17/03/16 10:25, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 16.03.16 at 21:05, <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> wrote:
>> @@ -1742,8 +1742,10 @@ static void load_segments(struct vcpu *n)
>> cs_and_mask = (unsigned short)regs->cs |
>> ((unsigned int)vcpu_info(n, evtchn_upcall_mask) << 16);
>> /* Fold upcall mask into RFLAGS.IF. */
>> - eflags = regs->_eflags & ~X86_EFLAGS_IF;
>> + eflags = regs->_eflags & ~(X86_EFLAGS_IF|X86_EFLAGS_IOPL);
> This and ...
>
>> @@ -1788,8 +1790,10 @@ static void load_segments(struct vcpu *n)
>> ((unsigned long)vcpu_info(n, evtchn_upcall_mask) << 32);
>>
>> /* Fold upcall mask into RFLAGS.IF. */
>> - rflags = regs->rflags & ~X86_EFLAGS_IF;
>> + rflags = regs->rflags & ~(X86_EFLAGS_IF|X86_EFLAGS_IOPL);
> ... this is not really necessary (but also not wrong) - the actual
> EFLAGS.IOPL is always zero (and assumed to be so by code
> further down from the respective adjustments you make). For
> consistency's sake it might be better to either drop the changes
> here, or also adjust the two places masking regs->eflags.
I will adjust the others. I would prefer not to rely on the assumption
that it is actually 0.
>
>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/traps.c
>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/traps.c
>> @@ -1806,7 +1806,9 @@ static int guest_io_okay(
>> #define TOGGLE_MODE() if ( user_mode ) toggle_guest_mode(v)
>>
>> if ( !vm86_mode(regs) &&
>> - (v->arch.pv_vcpu.iopl >= (guest_kernel_mode(v, regs) ? 1 : 3)) )
>> + (MASK_EXTR(v->arch.pv_vcpu.iopl, X86_EFLAGS_IOPL) >=
>> + (guest_kernel_mode(v, regs) ?
>> + (VM_ASSIST(v->domain, architectural_iopl) ? 0 : 1) : 3)) )
>> return 1;
>>
>> if ( v->arch.pv_vcpu.iobmp_limit > (port + bytes) )
>> @@ -2367,7 +2369,9 @@ static int emulate_privileged_op(struct cpu_user_regs *regs)
>>
>> case 0xfa: /* CLI */
>> case 0xfb: /* STI */
>> - if ( v->arch.pv_vcpu.iopl < (guest_kernel_mode(v, regs) ? 1 : 3) )
>> + if ( MASK_EXTR(v->arch.pv_vcpu.iopl, X86_EFLAGS_IOPL) <
>> + (guest_kernel_mode(v, regs) ?
>> + (VM_ASSIST(v->domain, architectural_iopl) ? 0 : 1) : 3) )
>> goto fail;
> The similarity of the two together with the growing complexity
> suggests to make this a macro or inline function. Additionally
> resulting binary code would likely be better if you compared
> v->arch.pv_vcpu.iopl with MASK_INSR(<literal value>,
> X86_EFLAGS_IOPL), even if that means having three
> MASK_INSR() (albeit those perhaps again would be hidden in
> a macro, e.g.
>
> #define IOPL(n) MASK_INSR(n, X86_EFLAGS_IOPL)
I will see what I can do.
>
> ).
>
>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/x86_64/compat/entry.S
>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/x86_64/compat/entry.S
>> @@ -277,9 +277,14 @@ compat_create_bounce_frame:
>> testb %al,%al # Bits 0-7: saved_upcall_mask
>> setz %ch # %ch == !saved_upcall_mask
>> movl UREGS_eflags+8(%rsp),%eax
>> - andl $~X86_EFLAGS_IF,%eax
>> + andl $~(X86_EFLAGS_IF|X86_EFLAGS_IOPL),%eax
> See earlier comment.
I hope I have suitably answered why this is staying.
>
>> addb %ch,%ch # Bit 9 (EFLAGS.IF)
>> orb %ch,%ah # Fold EFLAGS.IF into %eax
>> + movq VCPU_domain(%rbx),%rcx # if ( VM_ASSIST(v->domain, architectural_iopl) )
> If you used another register, this could be pulled up quite a bit,
> to hide the latency of the load before the loaded value gets used.
Can do, but given all pipeline stalls which currently exist in this
code, I doubt it will make any observable difference.
>
>> + testb $1 << VMASST_TYPE_architectural_iopl,DOMAIN_vm_assist(%rcx)
>> + jz .Lft6
>> + movzwl VCPU_iopl(%rbx),%ecx # Bits 13:12 (EFLAGS.IOPL)
> Why not just MOVL?
Ah yes - this is leftover from the first iteration.
~Andrew
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-03-17 10:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-03-16 20:05 [PATCH 0/2] XSA-171 Followup work Andrew Cooper
2016-03-16 20:05 ` [PATCH 1/2] xen/x86: Don't hold TRAPBOUNCE_flags in %cl during create_bounce_frame Andrew Cooper
2016-03-16 20:05 ` [PATCH 2/2] xen/x86: Introduce a new VMASSIST for architectural behaviour of iopl Andrew Cooper
2016-03-17 10:25 ` Jan Beulich
2016-03-17 10:45 ` Andrew Cooper [this message]
2016-03-17 11:00 ` Jan Beulich
2016-03-17 11:05 ` Andrew Cooper
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=56EA8ACC.2080102@citrix.com \
--to=andrew.cooper3@citrix.com \
--cc=JBeulich@suse.com \
--cc=luto@amacapital.net \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xen.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.