Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 1/3] x86/hvm: Add check when register io handler

[Suravee Suthikulanit]

On 5/23/2016 6:46 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:

On 22.05.16 at 01:42,  wrote:

--- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/intercept.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/intercept.c
@@ -258,6 +258,8 @@ struct hvm_io_handler *hvm_next_io_handler(struct domain *d)
 {
 unsigned int i = d->arch.hvm_domain.io_handler_count++;

+ASSERT( d->arch.hvm_domain.io_handler );


Am I wrong in understanding that without patch 2 this ASSERT() will
actually trigger? In which case the patch order would be wrong (but
that could be taken care of during commit).

Jan



Right, I can fix this in V4 if we decide to change the 
iommu_domain_initialise() ordering.


Suravee

___
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 1/3] x86/hvm: Add check when register io handler

[Jan Beulich]

>>> On 22.05.16 at 01:42,  wrote:
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/intercept.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/intercept.c
> @@ -258,6 +258,8 @@ struct hvm_io_handler *hvm_next_io_handler(struct domain 
> *d)
>  {
>  unsigned int i = d->arch.hvm_domain.io_handler_count++;
>  
> +ASSERT( d->arch.hvm_domain.io_handler );

Am I wrong in understanding that without patch 2 this ASSERT() will
actually trigger? In which case the patch order would be wrong (but
that could be taken care of during commit).

Jan


___
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 1/3] x86/hvm: Add check when register io handler

[Paul Durrant]

> -Original Message-
> From: suravee.suthikulpa...@amd.com
> [mailto:suravee.suthikulpa...@amd.com]
> Sent: 22 May 2016 00:42
> To: xen-devel@lists.xen.org; Paul Durrant; jbeul...@suse.com; George
> Dunlap
> Cc: Keir (Xen.org); Suravee Suthikulpanit; Suravee Suthikulpanit
> Subject: [PATCH v3 1/3] x86/hvm: Add check when register io handler
> 
> From: Suravee Suthikulpanit 
> 
> At the time of registering HVM I/O handler, the HVM domain might
> not have been initialized, which means the hvm_domain.io_handler
> would be NULL. In the hvm_next_io_handler(), this should be asserted.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Suravee Suthikulpanit 
> ---
>  xen/arch/x86/hvm/intercept.c | 2 ++
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/intercept.c b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/intercept.c
> index fc757d0..2f8d57f 100644
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/intercept.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/intercept.c
> @@ -258,6 +258,8 @@ struct hvm_io_handler *hvm_next_io_handler(struct
> domain *d)
>  {
>  unsigned int i = d->arch.hvm_domain.io_handler_count++;
> 
> +ASSERT( d->arch.hvm_domain.io_handler );

Needs fixing for style, but with that...

Reviewed-by: Paul Durrant 

> +
>  if ( i == NR_IO_HANDLERS )
>  {
>  domain_crash(d);
> --
> 1.9.1


___
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

[Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 1/3] x86/hvm: Add check when register io handler

[suravee.suthikulpanit]

From: Suravee Suthikulpanit 

At the time of registering HVM I/O handler, the HVM domain might
not have been initialized, which means the hvm_domain.io_handler
would be NULL. In the hvm_next_io_handler(), this should be asserted.

Signed-off-by: Suravee Suthikulpanit 
---
 xen/arch/x86/hvm/intercept.c | 2 ++
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/intercept.c b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/intercept.c
index fc757d0..2f8d57f 100644
--- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/intercept.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/intercept.c
@@ -258,6 +258,8 @@ struct hvm_io_handler *hvm_next_io_handler(struct domain *d)
 {
 unsigned int i = d->arch.hvm_domain.io_handler_count++;
 
+ASSERT( d->arch.hvm_domain.io_handler );
+
 if ( i == NR_IO_HANDLERS )
 {
 domain_crash(d);
-- 
1.9.1


___
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

[Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 1/3] x86/hvm: Add check when register io handler

[suravee.suthikulpanit]

From: Suravee Suthikulpanit 

At the time of registering HVM I/O handler, the HVM domain might
not have been initialized, which means the hvm_domain.io_handler
would be NULL. In the hvm_next_io_handler(), this should be asserted.

Signed-off-by: Suravee Suthikulpanit 
---
 xen/arch/x86/hvm/intercept.c | 2 ++
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/intercept.c b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/intercept.c
index fc757d0..2f8d57f 100644
--- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/intercept.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/intercept.c
@@ -258,6 +258,8 @@ struct hvm_io_handler *hvm_next_io_handler(struct domain *d)
 {
 unsigned int i = d->arch.hvm_domain.io_handler_count++;
 
+ASSERT( d->arch.hvm_domain.io_handler );
+
 if ( i == NR_IO_HANDLERS )
 {
 domain_crash(d);
-- 
1.9.1


___
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel