On Fri, Feb 09, 2007 at 11:39:31PM +1100, Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-02-09 at 11:09 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > +# This links the hypervisor in the right place and turns it into a C array.
> > > +$(obj)/hypervisor-raw: $(obj)/hypervisor.o
> > > + @$(LD) -static -Tdata=`printf %#x $$(($(HYPE_ADDR)))` -Ttext=`printf %#x $$(($(HYPE_ADDR)+$(HYPE_DATA_SIZE)))` -o $@ $< && $(OBJCOPY) -O binary $@
> > > +$(obj)/hypervisor-blob.c: $(obj)/hypervisor-raw
> > > + @od -tx1 -An -v $< | sed -e 's/^ /0x/' -e 's/$$/,/' -e 's/ /,0x/g' > $@
> >
> > an .S file with .incbin is more efficient and simpler
> > (note it has to be an separate .S file, otherwise icecream/distcc break)
> >
> > It won't allow to show off any sed skills, but I guess we can live with that ;-)
>
> Good idea, except I currently use sizeof(hypervisor_blob): I'd have to
> extract the size separately and hand it in the CFLAGS 8(
hypervisor_start:
.incbin "hypervisor"
hypervisor_end:
...
extern char hypervisor_start[], hypervisor_end[];
size = hypervisor_end - hypervisor_start;
> > > +static int cpu_had_pge;
> > > +static struct {
> > > + unsigned long offset;
> > > + unsigned short segment;
> > > +} lguest_entry;
> > > +struct page *hype_pages; /* Contiguous pages. */
> >
> > Statics? looks funky. Why only a single hypervisor_vma?
>
> We only have one switcher: it contains an array of "struct
> lguest_state"; one for each guest. (This is host code we're looking at
> here).
This means it is not SMP safe?
> No, the guest should not be able to evoke a printk from the host kernel.
This means nobody will know why it failed.
> > > + else if (i < FIRST_EXTERNAL_VECTOR || i == SYSCALL_VECTOR)
> > > + setup_idt(lg, i, &d);
> > > + /* A virtual interrupt */
> > > + else if (i < FIRST_EXTERNAL_VECTOR + LGUEST_IRQS)
> > > + copy_trap(lg, &lg->interrupt[i-FIRST_EXTERNAL_VECTOR], &d);\
> >
> > switch is not cool enough anymore?
>
> It would have to be a switch then gunk at the bottom, because those last
> two tests don't switch-ify. IIRC I changed back from a switch because
> of that.
gcc has a handy extension for this:
case 0...FIRST_EXTERNAL_VECTOR-1:
case SYSCALL_VECTOR:
case FIRST_EXTERNAL_VECTOR...FIRST_EXTERNAL_VECTOR+LGUEST_IRQS:
Re: the loops; e.g. we used to have possible loop cases
when a page fault does read instructions and then causes another
page fault etc.etc. I haven't seen any immediate danger of this,
but it might be worth double checking.
-Andi
