[BitVisor-devel-en:5] Re: A question about process[pid].msgdsc[desc].func

[Nafise Sadat Moosavi]

Dear Hideki EIRAKU,
Thank you very much for your help.
We were wrongly tracing sys_msgsetfunc() instead of msgsetfunc().
We are looking for the ways of adding storage virtualization to bitvisor, if
it will be possible.
Can anyone help us about this issue, is it possible with the current
architecture of bitvisor? or we can only offer an enhanced storage to the
guest OS with this architecture?

Thanks in advance,
Regards,
Nafise

On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 2:42 PM, Hideki EIRAKU <hdk at igel.co.jp> wrote:

> From: Nafise Sadat Moosavi <ns.moosavi at gmail.com>
> Subject: [BitVisor-devel-en:3] A question about
> process[pid].msgdsc[desc].func
> Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2010 12:09:37 +0430
> Message-ID: <AANLkTikF3qh7eCnGS23Wx84Vm5ugk7FhgyAEpnRv+AfQ at mail.gmail.com<AANLkTikF3qh7eCnGS23Wx84Vm5ugk7FhgyAEpnRv%2BAfQ at mail.gmail.com>
> >
>
> > But unfortunately we cannot find out where the related functions of
> msgdesc
> > of each process (process[pid].msgdsc[desc].func]) have been set; Thus we
> > could not found out how the protection domain mechanism works?
>
> process[pid].msgdsc[desc].func is set by msgregister() or
> msgsetfunc(). In the case of storage protection domain, msgregister()
> is called by storage_init() function.
>
> > Is this a fully implemented feature, or it is just an initial idea to be
> > completed later?
>
> It works well.
>
> --
> Hideki EIRAKU <hdk at igel.co.jp>
> _______________________________________________
> BitVisor-devel-en mailing list
> BitVisor-devel-en at bitvisor.org
> https://www.bitvisor.org/mailman/listinfo/bitvisor-devel-en
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.bitvisor.org/archives/bitvisor-devel-en/attachments/20100831/c1416d32/attachment.html