[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120420164325.GD31062@phenom.dumpdata.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 12:43:25 -0400
From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
To: Lin Ming <mlin@...pku.edu.cn>
Cc: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...rix.com>,
Andrew Cooper <Andrew.Cooper3@...rix.com>,
"xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com" <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen/apic: implement io apic read with
hypercall
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 11:39:24PM +0800, Lin Ming wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-04-20 at 16:06 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Fri, 2012-04-20 at 15:50 +0100, Lin Ming wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 9:12 PM, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...rix.com> wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 2012-04-20 at 13:53 +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Under what circumstances can these hypercalls fail? Would a BUG_ON be
> > > >> > appropriate/
> > > >>
> > > >> -EFAULT, -EPERM, anything xsm_apic() could return (which looks only to
> > > >> be -EPERM).
> > > >
> > > > So either the guest has called a hypercall which it is not permitted to
> > > > or it has called it with invalid parameters of one sort or another. Both
> > > > of these would be a code bug in the guest and therefore asserting that
> > > > no failure occurred is reasonable?
> > > >
> > > > What could the caller do with the error other than log it and collapse?
> > > >
> > > >> The call into Xen itself will return 0 as a value if an
> > > >> invalid physbase is passed in the hypercall.
>
> Just checked ioapic_guest_read.
> It will return -EINVAL if an invalid physbase is passed in.
>
> > > >
> > > >> So a BUG_ON() is not safe/sensible for domU.
> > > >
> > > > I think you have successfully argued that it is ;-)
> > >
> > > BUG_ON is too severe.
> >
> > Why? Under what circumstances can this be correctly called in a way
> > which would result in the hypercall failing?
>
> Is BUG_ON() reasonable if invalid physbase passed in?
Just emulate the values in the error case. We don't _need_ them per say - except
to emulate some sensible values.
>
> >
> > > How about WARN_ON?
> > >
> > > ret = hypercall(...)
> > >
> > > if (ret) {
> > > WARN_ON(1);
> > > return -1;
> > > }
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Ian.
> >
> >
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists