From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Razvan Cojocaru <rcojocaru@bitdefender.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 3/3] xen/vm_event: Deny register writes
 if refused by vm_event reply
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 19:25:07 +0300
Message-ID: <55A537E3.9040908@bitdefender.com>
References: <1436807687-9826-1-git-send-email-rcojocaru@bitdefender.com>
	<1436807687-9826-4-git-send-email-rcojocaru@bitdefender.com>
	<55A51E1D0200007800090AF4@mail.emea.novell.com>
	<55A5126B.7070600@bitdefender.com>
	<55A53BBD0200007800090D05@mail.emea.novell.com>
	<55A5250B.8050305@bitdefender.com>
	<55A54D240200007800090DF6@mail.emea.novell.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: <55A54D240200007800090DF6@mail.emea.novell.com>
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: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: jun.nakajima@intel.com, kevin.tian@intel.com, wei.liu2@citrix.com, ian.campbell@citrix.com, stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com, george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com, andrew.cooper3@citrix.com, ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com, xen-devel@lists.xen.org, eddie.dong@intel.com, Aravind.Gopalakrishnan@amd.com, suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com, tlengyel@novetta.com, keir@xen.org, boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 07/14/2015 06:55 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 14.07.15 at 17:04, <rcojocaru@bitdefender.com> wrote:
>> On 07/14/2015 05:41 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>> On 14.07.15 at 15:45, <rcojocaru@bitdefender.com> wrote:
>>>> On 07/14/2015 03:35 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 13.07.15 at 19:14, <rcojocaru@bitdefender.com> wrote:
>>>>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/vm_event.c
>>>>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/vm_event.c
>>>>>> @@ -22,11 +22,19 @@
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>  #include <xen/sched.h>
>>>>>>  #include <asm/hvm/hvm.h>
>>>>>> +#include <asm/vm_event.h>
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>  int vm_event_init_domain(struct domain *d)
>>>>>>  {
>>>>>>      struct vcpu *v;
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> +    if ( !d->arch.event_write_data )
>>>>>> +        d->arch.event_write_data = xzalloc_array(struct monitor_write_data,
>>>>>> +                                                 d->max_vcpus);
>>>>>
>>>>> Looking at this again I wonder why the data isn't being made part of
>>>>> struct arch_vcpu's vm_event sub-structure. That would also address
>>>>> the complaint I have here about this not being a guaranteed maximum
>>>>> page size runtime allocation.
>>>>
>>>> I think this is just how the initial suggestion was worded, I'll change it.
>>>
>>> Right - after having sent the reply I started wondering whether
>>> maybe I had asked for this. But if I did, then surely not with
>>> xzalloc_array(), but vzalloc().
>>>
>>> If you moved this into struct arch_vcpu (again), then its size would
>>> likely call for the whole vm_event structure to become indirectly
>>> accessed and allocated.
>>
>> In that case would it suffice to just switch to vzalloc() in this case?
> 
> For now, yes.
> 
>> I'm not opposed to just placing all the data (this and the
>> memory-content hiding data) in struct vm_event and allocate that as a
>> whole, but that would change patch 1/3, 3/3 and also touch other code.
> 
> Would be a nice thing to clean up post-4.6.

I agree, and I will add it to my queue.


Thanks,
Razvan