On 07/23/2015 10:21 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 11.07.15 at 00:20, <boris.ostrov...@oracle.com> wrote:
Signed-off-by: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrov...@oracle.com>
---
Changes in v3:
* Defined compat_mmuext_op(). (XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(mmuext_op_compat_t)
is not defined in header files so I used 'void' type.
How is it not? It's in compat/xen.h (which is a generated header).
compat/xen.h has DEFINE_COMPAT_HANDLE(mmuext_op_compat_t) (which is
__compat_handle_mmuext_op_compat_t).
We need XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(mmuext_op_compat_t), which is
__guest_handle_mmuext_op_compat_t. And I wasn't sure it's worth
explicitly adding it to a header file (like I think what we do for
vcpu_runstate_info_compat_t in sched.h);
@@ -4951,6 +4950,29 @@ static hvm_hypercall_t *const
pvh_hypercall64_table[NR_hypercalls] = {
[ __HYPERVISOR_arch_1 ] = (hvm_hypercall_t *)paging_domctl_continuation
};
+extern int compat_mmuext_op(XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(void) cmp_uops,
+ unsigned int count,
+ XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(uint) pdone,
+ unsigned int foreigndom);
+static hvm_hypercall_t *const pvh_hypercall32_table[NR_hypercalls] = {
+ HYPERCALL(platform_op),
+ COMPAT_CALL(memory_op),
+ HYPERCALL(xen_version),
+ HYPERCALL(console_io),
+ [ __HYPERVISOR_grant_table_op ] =
+ (hvm_hypercall_t *)hvm_grant_table_op_compat32,
+ COMPAT_CALL(vcpu_op),
+ COMPAT_CALL(mmuext_op),
+ HYPERCALL(xsm_op),
+ COMPAT_CALL(sched_op),
+ HYPERCALL(event_channel_op),
+ [ __HYPERVISOR_physdev_op ] = (hvm_hypercall_t *)hvm_physdev_op_compat32,
+ HYPERCALL(hvm_op),
+ HYPERCALL(sysctl),
+ HYPERCALL(domctl),
+ [ __HYPERVISOR_arch_1 ] = (hvm_hypercall_t *)paging_domctl_continuation
Looks like you didn't fully sync with staging - did you forget that it
was you who added xenpmu_op to the 64-bit counterpart?
I think I posted this before VPMU got committed. But yes...
Without that ...
@@ -4981,7 +5003,7 @@ int hvm_do_hypercall(struct cpu_user_regs *regs)
return viridian_hypercall(regs);
if ( (eax >= NR_hypercalls) ||
- (is_pvh_domain(currd) ? !pvh_hypercall64_table[eax]
+ (is_pvh_domain(currd) ? !pvh_hypercall32_table[eax]
: !hvm_hypercall32_table[eax]) )
... this will break (as we're assuming 32- and 64-bit tables to be fully
in sync here; there's still the pending work item of constructing these
tables so that this has a better chance of not getting broken).
So you prefer to have full check --- explicitly for both 32- and 64-bit,
right?
-boris
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
