On x86, idle and other system domains are implicitly PV. While I
couldn't spot any cases where this is actively a problem, some cases
required quite close inspection to be certain there couldn't e.g. be
some ASSERT_UNREACHABLE() that would trigger in this case. Let's be on
the safe side and make sure these always have is_pv_domain() returning
true.
For the build to still work, this requires a few adjustments elsewhere.
In particular is_pv_64bit_domain() now gains a CONFIG_PV dependency,
which means that is_pv_32bit_domain() || is_pv_64bit_domain() is no
longer guaranteed to be the same as is_pv_domain().
Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
---
v2: Add comment.
--- a/xen/arch/x86/dom0_build.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/dom0_build.c
@@ -571,7 +571,7 @@ int __init construct_dom0(struct domain
if ( is_hvm_domain(d) )
rc = dom0_construct_pvh(d, image, image_headroom, initrd, cmdline);
- else if ( is_pv_domain(d) )
+ else if ( is_pv_64bit_domain(d) || is_pv_32bit_domain(d) )
rc = dom0_construct_pv(d, image, image_headroom, initrd, cmdline);
else
panic("Cannot construct Dom0. No guest interface available\n");
--- a/xen/arch/x86/domain.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/domain.c
@@ -1564,6 +1564,7 @@ arch_do_vcpu_op(
*/
static void load_segments(struct vcpu *n)
{
+#ifdef CONFIG_PV
struct cpu_user_regs *uregs = &n->arch.user_regs;
unsigned long gsb = 0, gss = 0;
bool compat = is_pv_32bit_vcpu(n);
@@ -1729,6 +1730,7 @@ static void load_segments(struct vcpu *n
regs->cs = FLAT_KERNEL_CS;
regs->rip = pv->failsafe_callback_eip;
}
+#endif
}
/*
@@ -1743,6 +1745,7 @@ static void load_segments(struct vcpu *n
*/
static void save_segments(struct vcpu *v)
{
+#ifdef CONFIG_PV
struct cpu_user_regs *regs = &v->arch.user_regs;
read_sregs(regs);
@@ -1768,6 +1771,7 @@ static void save_segments(struct vcpu *v
else
v->arch.pv.gs_base_user = gs_base;
}
+#endif
}
void paravirt_ctxt_switch_from(struct vcpu *v)
--- a/xen/arch/x86/domctl.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/domctl.c
@@ -457,13 +457,13 @@ long arch_do_domctl(
case XEN_DOMCTL_set_address_size:
if ( is_hvm_domain(d) )
ret = -EOPNOTSUPP;
+ else if ( is_pv_64bit_domain(d) && domctl->u.address_size.size == 32 )
+ ret = switch_compat(d);
else if ( is_pv_domain(d) )
{
if ( ((domctl->u.address_size.size == 64) && !d->arch.pv.is_32bit) ||
((domctl->u.address_size.size == 32) && d->arch.pv.is_32bit) )
ret = 0;
- else if ( domctl->u.address_size.size == 32 )
- ret = switch_compat(d);
else
ret = -EINVAL;
}
--- a/xen/include/xen/sched.h
+++ b/xen/include/xen/sched.h
@@ -1036,9 +1036,14 @@ static always_inline bool is_control_dom
#define VM_ASSIST(d, t) (test_bit(VMASST_TYPE_ ## t, &(d)->vm_assist))
+/*
+ * Note that is_pv_domain() can return true (for system domains) even when
+ * both is_pv_64bit_domain() and is_pv_32bit_domain() return false. IOW
+ * system domains can be considered PV without specific bitness.
+ */
static always_inline bool is_pv_domain(const struct domain *d)
{
- return IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PV) &&
+ return IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_X86) &&
evaluate_nospec(!(d->options & XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_hvm));
}
@@ -1064,7 +1069,7 @@ static always_inline bool is_pv_32bit_vc
static always_inline bool is_pv_64bit_domain(const struct domain *d)
{
- if ( !is_pv_domain(d) )
+ if ( !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PV) || !is_pv_domain(d) )
return false;
#ifdef CONFIG_PV32
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 11:34:55AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: > On x86, idle and other system domains are implicitly PV. While I > couldn't spot any cases where this is actively a problem, some cases > required quite close inspection to be certain there couldn't e.g. be > some ASSERT_UNREACHABLE() that would trigger in this case. Let's be on > the safe side and make sure these always have is_pv_domain() returning > true. > > For the build to still work, this requires a few adjustments elsewhere. > In particular is_pv_64bit_domain() now gains a CONFIG_PV dependency, > which means that is_pv_32bit_domain() || is_pv_64bit_domain() is no > longer guaranteed to be the same as is_pv_domain(). > > Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> > --- > v2: Add comment. Sorry for not replying earlier, I've been thinking about this because I don't really like this approach as I think it makes code harder to follow for two reasons, first is_pv_32bit_domain() || is_pv_64bit_domain() != is_pv_domain(), which I could live with, and then also is_pv_64bit_domain() returning different values for system domains depending on whether CONFIG_PV is enabled. Given that AFAICT this patch is not fixing any actively identified issue I would rather prefer to introduce is_system_domain and use it when appropriate? I think that would be clearer long term, and avoid tying ourselves deeper into aliasing system domain with PV domains. Thanks, Roger.
On 15.04.2021 12:53, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 11:34:55AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On x86, idle and other system domains are implicitly PV. While I >> couldn't spot any cases where this is actively a problem, some cases >> required quite close inspection to be certain there couldn't e.g. be >> some ASSERT_UNREACHABLE() that would trigger in this case. Let's be on >> the safe side and make sure these always have is_pv_domain() returning >> true. >> >> For the build to still work, this requires a few adjustments elsewhere. >> In particular is_pv_64bit_domain() now gains a CONFIG_PV dependency, >> which means that is_pv_32bit_domain() || is_pv_64bit_domain() is no >> longer guaranteed to be the same as is_pv_domain(). >> >> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> >> --- >> v2: Add comment. > > Sorry for not replying earlier, I've been thinking about this because > I don't really like this approach as I think it makes code harder to > follow for two reasons, first is_pv_32bit_domain() || > is_pv_64bit_domain() != is_pv_domain(), which I could live with, and > then also is_pv_64bit_domain() returning different values for system > domains depending on whether CONFIG_PV is enabled. Well, okay, I'll consider the patch rejected then, despite thinking that it could save us from subtle issues down the road. > Given that AFAICT this patch is not fixing any actively identified > issue I would rather prefer to introduce is_system_domain and use it > when appropriate? > > I think that would be clearer long term, and avoid tying ourselves > deeper into aliasing system domain with PV domains. Of course, but it won't help until we've audited and (if needed) amended all code using is_pv_*() or e.g. implying PV when !is_hvm_*(). Patch 2, while grouped with this one, is technically independent. Therefore I'd still appreciate separate feedback there. Jan
© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.