On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 07:34:55PM +0100, BALATON Zoltan wrote: > On Mon, 13 Feb 2023, Peter Xu wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 05:34:04PM +0100, BALATON Zoltan wrote: > > > On Mon, 13 Feb 2023, Peter Xu wrote: > > > > On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 03:47:42PM +0100, BALATON Zoltan wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 13 Feb 2023, Peter Xu wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 12:41:29PM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote: > > > > > > > On 07/02/2023 17.33, BALATON Zoltan wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, 31 Jan 2023, BALATON Zoltan wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 19 Jan 2023, BALATON Zoltan wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Currently -d guest_errors enables logging of different > > > > > > > > > > invalid actions > > > > > > > > > > by the guest such as misusing hardware, accessing missing > > > > > > > > > > features or > > > > > > > > > > invalid memory areas. The memory access logging can be > > > > > > > > > > quite verbose > > > > > > > > > > which obscures the other messages enabled by this debug > > > > > > > > > > switch so > > > > > > > > > > separate it by adding a new -d memaccess option to make it > > > > > > > > > > possible to > > > > > > > > > > control it independently of other guest error logs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: BALATON Zoltan <bala...@eik.bme.hu> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ping? Could somebody review and pick it up please? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ping? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Patch makes sense to me and looks fine, so: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ... I think this should go via one of the "Memory API" > > > > > > > maintainers branches? > > > > > > > Paolo? Peter? David? > > > > > > > > > > > > Paolo normally does the pull, I assume that'll still be the case. > > > > > > The > > > > > > patch looks good to me if Phil's comment will be addressed on > > > > > > merging with > > > > > > the old mask, which makes sense to me: > > > > > > > > > > Keeping the old mask kind of defies the purpose. I've tried to > > > > > explain that > > > > > in the commit message but now that two of you did not get it maybe > > > > > that > > > > > message needs to be clarified instead? > > > > > > > > I think it's clear enough. My fault to not read carefully into the > > > > message, sorry. > > > > > > > > However, could you explain why a memory_region_access_valid() failure > > > > shouldn't belong to LOG_GUEST_ERROR? > > > > > > > > commit e54eba1986f6c4bac2951e7f90a849cd842e25e4 > > > > Author: Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> > > > > Date: Thu Oct 18 14:11:35 2012 +0100 > > > > > > > > qemu-log: Add new log category for guest bugs > > > > > > > > Add a new category for device models to log guest behaviour > > > > which is likely to be a guest bug of some kind (accessing > > > > nonexistent registers, reading 32 bit wide registers with > > > > a byte access, etc). Making this its own log category allows > > > > those who care (mostly guest OS authors) to see the complaints > > > > without bothering most users. > > > > > > > > Such an illegal memory access is definitely a suitable candidate of > > > > guest > > > > misbehave to me. > > > > > > Problem is that a lot of machines have unimplemented hardware that are > > > valid > > > on real machine but we don't model them so running guests which access > > > these > > > generate constant flow of unassigned memory access log which obscures the > > > actual guest_errors when an modelled device is accessed in unexpected > > > ways. > > > For an example you can try booting MorphOS on mac99,via=pmu as described > > > here: http://zero.eik.bme.hu/~balaton/qemu/amiga/#morphos > > > (or the pegasos2 command too). We could add dummy registers to silence > > > these > > > but I think it's better to either implement it correctly or leave it > > > unimplemented so we don't hide errors by the dummy implementation. > > > > > > > Not to mention Phil always have a good point that you may be violating > > > > others using guest_error already so what they wanted to capture can > > > > misterious going away without noticing, even if it may service your > > > > goal. > > > > IOW it's a slight ABI and I think we ned justification to break it. > > > > > > Probably this should be documented in changelog or do we need depracation > > > for a debug option meant for developers mostly? I did not think so. Also I > > > can't think of other way to solve this without changing what guest_erorrs > > > do > > > unless we change the name of that flag as well. Also not that when this > > > was > > > originally added it did not contain mem access logs as those were > > > controlled > > > by a define in memory.c until Philippe changed it and added them to > > > guest_errors. So in a way I want the previous functionality back. > > > > I see, thanks. > > > > Indeed it's only a debug option, so I don't know whether the abi needs the > > attention here. > > > > I quickly looked at all the masks and afaict this is really a special and > > very useful one that if I'm a cloud provider I can run some script trying > > to capture those violations using this bit to identify suspecious guests. > > > > So I think it would still be great to not break it if possible, IMHO. > > > > Since currently I don't see an immediate limitation of having qemu log mask > > being a single bit for each of the entry, one way to satisfy your need (and > > also keep the old behavior, iiuc), is to make guest_errors a sugar syntax > > to cover 2 bits. It shouldn't be complicated at all, I assume: > > > > +/* This covers the generic guest errors besides memory violations */ > > #define LOG_GUEST_ERROR (1 << 11) > > > > +/* > > + * This covers the guest errors on memory violations; see LOG_GUEST_ERROR > > + * for generic guest errors. > > + */ > > +#define LOG_GUEST_ERROR_MEM (1 << 21) > > +#define LOG_GUEST_ERROR_ALL (LOG_GUEST_ERROR | LOG_GUEST_ERROR_MEM) > > > > - { LOG_GUEST_ERROR, "guest_errors", > > + { LOG_GUEST_ERROR_ALL, "guest_errors", > > > > Then somehow squashed with your changes. It'll make "guest_errors" not > > exactly matching the name of LOG_* but I think it may not be a big concern. > > I'm not sure I understand this. So -d memaccess would give me the unassigned > logs, that's fine and -d guest_errors are both LOG_GUEST_ERROR and memaccess > like currently but what option would give me just the guest_Errors before > mem access started to use this flag too? (I could not locate the commit that > changed this but I remember previously the unassigned mem logs were enabled > with a define in memory.c.) Do we need another -d option for just the guest > errors then? What should that be called?
I forgot to add those two definitions into qemu_log_items just now. It can be defined as: - "guest_errors_common" for !mem errors - "guest_errors_mem" for mem errors - "guest_errors" for mem+!mem (compatible to the old code) With the two lines added: - { LOG_GUEST_ERROR, "guest_errors", + { LOG_GUEST_ERROR_ALL, "guest_errors", "log when the guest OS does something invalid (eg accessing a\n" "non-existent register)" }, + { LOG_GUEST_ERROR, "guest_errors_common", "..." }, + { LOG_GUEST_ERROR_MEM, "guest_errors_mem", "..." }, I saw that Phil revoked his concern, I don't have a strong opinion personally, assuming Phil knows better on that since he modified the memory loggings before. If all are happy with this, please proceed with either way. Thanks, -- Peter Xu