From: Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>
To: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>
Cc: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>, kvm <kvm@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] KVM: VMX: Update instruction length on intercepted BP
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 15:12:38 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100217131238.GV2995@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4B7BD1BB.7090909@siemens.com>
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 12:23:39PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 01:13:29PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> >> On 02/17/2010 12:43 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >>>> And, again: This is an _existing_ user space ABI. We could only provide
> >>>> an alternative, but we have to maintain what is there at least for some
> >>>> longer grace period.
> >>>>
> >>> But it was always broken for SVM and was broken for VMX for a year and
> >>> nobody noticed, so may be instead of reintroducing old interface we should
> >>> do it right this time?
> >> We need to fix the existing interface first, and then think long and
> >> hard if we want yet another interface, since we're likely to screw
> >> it up as well.
> >>
> >> The more interfaces we introduce, the harder maintenance becomes.
> >>
> > We are in a sad state if we cannot improve interface. The current one
> > outsource part of CPU functionality into userspace. This should be a big
> > no-no.
>
> I still disagree on this. Moving the decision logic to user space
> prevented to re-implement a gdbstub in kernel space. I oversaw that
> re-injecting #BP over older SVM was broken, but it is now fixed for all
> vendors. So moving it back to kernel has actually no long-term reason.
>
There were patches to implement gdbstub in kernel space! And not so long
time ago :) But I want to move only a tiny bit of logic into the kernel space.
And #BP reinjection brokenness is a different issue. It should be fixed
anyway no matter where decision about reinfection happens.
If maintainers think that we should not have improved interface and we
should support reinjection of #DB from userspace then this patch should
be applied. I don't have other objections to it. But I, at least, would
prefer the old interface for #DB reinjection (KVM_GUESTDBG_INJECT_DB)
and not the new one. The old one makes it explicit what we are doing,
the new one allows injection of any event and should be used only during
migration or CPU reset. It would be event good idea to fail setting
events if CPU is running.
--
Gleb.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-02-17 13:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-02-15 14:53 [PATCH v2] KVM: VMX: Update instruction length on intercepted BP Jan Kiszka
2010-02-16 7:33 ` Gleb Natapov
2010-02-16 8:05 ` Jan Kiszka
2010-02-16 8:24 ` Gleb Natapov
2010-02-16 9:11 ` Jan Kiszka
2010-02-17 10:43 ` Gleb Natapov
2010-02-17 11:13 ` Avi Kivity
2010-02-17 11:16 ` Gleb Natapov
2010-02-17 11:23 ` Jan Kiszka
2010-02-17 13:12 ` Gleb Natapov [this message]
2010-02-17 19:17 ` Jan Kiszka
2010-02-18 7:35 ` Gleb Natapov
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=20100217131238.GV2995@redhat.com \
--to=gleb@redhat.com \
--cc=avi@redhat.com \
--cc=jan.kiszka@siemens.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mtosatti@redhat.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox