From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC V4 1/5] xen: Emulate with no writes
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2014 15:42:39 +0100
Message-ID: <53DFB7FF0200007800029197@mail.emea.novell.com>
References: <1407151825-3843-1-git-send-email-rcojocaru@bitdefender.com>
	<53DFB0440200007800029111@mail.emea.novell.com>
	<53DF97DC.8010402@bitdefender.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: <53DF97DC.8010402@bitdefender.com>
Content-Disposition: inline
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: Razvan Cojocaru <rcojocaru@bitdefender.com>
Cc: kevin.tian@intel.com, ian.campbell@citrix.com, stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com, andrew.cooper3@citrix.com, eddie.dong@intel.com, xen-devel@lists.xen.org, jun.nakajima@intel.com, ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

>>> On 04.08.14 at 16:25, <rcojocaru@bitdefender.com> wrote:
> On 08/04/2014 05:09 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 04.08.14 at 13:30, <rcojocaru@bitdefender.com> wrote:
>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/emulate.c
>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/emulate.c
>>> @@ -688,6 +688,51 @@ static int hvmemul_write(
>>>      return X86EMUL_OKAY;
>>>  }
>>>  
>>> +static int hvmemul_write_discard(
>>> +    enum x86_segment seg,
>>> +    unsigned long offset,
>>> +    void *p_data,
>>> +    unsigned int bytes,
>>> +    struct x86_emulate_ctxt *ctxt)
>>> +{
>>> +    /* Discarding the write. */
>>> +    return X86EMUL_OKAY;
>>> +}
>> 
>> While this one is okay, ...
>> 
>>> +static int hvmemul_rep_ins_discard(
>>> +    uint16_t src_port,
>>> +    enum x86_segment dst_seg,
>>> +    unsigned long dst_offset,
>>> +    unsigned int bytes_per_rep,
>>> +    unsigned long *reps,
>>> +    struct x86_emulate_ctxt *ctxt)
>>> +{
>>> +    return X86EMUL_OKAY;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static int hvmemul_rep_movs_discard(
>>> +   enum x86_segment src_seg,
>>> +   unsigned long src_offset,
>>> +   enum x86_segment dst_seg,
>>> +   unsigned long dst_offset,
>>> +   unsigned int bytes_per_rep,
>>> +   unsigned long *reps,
>>> +   struct x86_emulate_ctxt *ctxt)
>>> +{
>>> +    return X86EMUL_OKAY;
>>> +}
>> 
>> ... these don't seem to be: I don't think you can just drop the other
>> half of the operation (i.e. the port or MMIO read).
> 
> It's been suggested here:
> 
> http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2014-07/msg03088.html 
> 
> that we should use modified versions of the rep_ins, rep_movs and
> cmpxchg handlers if we want to make sure absolutely no writes will
> happen. Then again, perhaps the modification were supposed to be more
> subtle than just doing nothing in the handler?

That's what I'm trying to hint at.

Jan