From: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>, Xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] x86/domctl: Implement XEN_DOMCTL_{get, set}_vcpu_msrs
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 15:53:52 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5391D600.8010307@citrix.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <53908DE402000078000183DC@mail.emea.novell.com>
On 05/06/14 14:33, Jan Beulich wrote:
> <snip>
>> The sole use of this hypercall needs to ensure that all MSRs are gotten,
>> otherwise VM corruption will occur. Permitting a partial get will make
>> the return value ambiguous for making this hypercall a single time and
>> guessing at the size to use, although I suspect we are less interested
>> in this problem.
> Why would the return value ambiguous? You'd get -ENOBUFS if you
> provided too few slots, and you'd get to know the maximum number
> at that point at once.
>
> Jan
>
Having tried to implement these improvements, I hit problems so would
like to decide upon an interface before hacking futher.
Currently behaviour for get:
* Null guest handle returns msr_count set to maximum number of msrs Xen
might write
* msr_count < max_msrs fails with -ENOBUFS
* if msrs are written, msr_count reflects the number written (likely
less than max_msrs)
Current behaviour for set:
* msr_count > max_msrs fails with -EINVAL
* problems with individual msrs fail with -EINVAL
Suggestions:
* for get, msr_count < max_msrs should perform a partial write,
returning -ENOBUFS if Xen needs to write more than msr_count msrs.
This reduces the amount of code added to xc_domain_save() to fail
migrations actually using PV msrs. I am not too concerned about this
code, as it will be rm'd in the migration-v2 series which implements PV
MSR migration properly. I am a little bit hesitant about supporting
partial writes, although I suppose it is plausible to want to know "how
many MSRs is the vcpu currently using", and doing that with a single
hypercall is preferable to requiring two.
* for set, in the case of a bad msr, identify it back to the caller to
aid with debugging.
This is useful to help debugging, but needs disambiguating against the
other cases which fail with -EINVAL, including the paths which would
fail before having a chance to set msr_count to the index of the bad
msr. Therefore, msr_count *can't* be overloaded for this purpose.
I see one solution to these problems. Using:
struct xen_domctl_vcpu_msrs {
u32 vcpu;
union { u16 max_msrs, /* OUT from get */
u16 err_idx}; /* Possibly OUT from set */
u16 msr_count;
XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_64(xen_domctl_vcpu_msr_t) msrs;
};
max_msrs and current msrs can be reported at the same time (both on a
NULL guest handle). If the caller of set sets err_idx to ~0 before the
call, it can unambiguously determine the offending MSR, without
confusing other -EINVAL failure cases.
Does this look plausible? Can we get away with anonymous unions in the
public header files?
~Andrew
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-06-06 14:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-06-04 17:26 [PATCH 0/4] Fixes to several domctls for migration Andrew Cooper
2014-06-04 17:26 ` [PATCH 1/4] x86/domctl: Implement XEN_DOMCTL_{get, set}_vcpu_msrs Andrew Cooper
2014-06-05 12:46 ` Jan Beulich
2014-06-05 13:01 ` Andrew Cooper
2014-06-05 13:33 ` Jan Beulich
2014-06-06 14:53 ` Andrew Cooper [this message]
2014-06-06 15:09 ` Jan Beulich
2014-06-06 15:28 ` Andrew Cooper
2014-06-04 17:26 ` [PATCH 2/4] tools/libxc: Use an explicit check for PV MSRs in xc_domain_save() Andrew Cooper
2014-06-05 13:41 ` Jan Beulich
2014-06-05 15:52 ` Ian Campbell
2014-06-05 15:57 ` Andrew Cooper
2014-06-06 9:15 ` Ian Campbell
2014-06-06 9:44 ` Andrew Cooper
2014-06-06 9:48 ` Ian Campbell
2014-06-04 17:26 ` [PATCH 3/4] x86/domctl: Remove PV MSR parts of XEN_DOMCTL_[gs]et_ext_vcpucontext Andrew Cooper
2014-06-05 7:52 ` Frediano Ziglio
2014-06-05 9:25 ` Andrew Cooper
2014-06-04 17:26 ` [PATCH 4/4] x86/domctl: Two functional fixes to XEN_DOMCTL_[gs]etvcpuextstate 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=5391D600.8010307@citrix.com \
--to=andrew.cooper3@citrix.com \
--cc=JBeulich@suse.com \
--cc=keir@xen.org \
--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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).