RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Proper use of VMX execution controls MSR.

["Nakajima, Jun" <jun.nakajima@xxxxxxxxx>]

Keir Fraser wrote:
> On 28/3/07 16:51, "Li, Xin B" <xin.b.li@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> Better use of VMX execution controls MSR.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Xin Li<xin.b.li@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Is this actually to fix a problem with a future processor?
> 
> This whole bit-forcing thing seems extremely odd to me. We set the
> controls that Xen currently needs to do its job as a VMM properly --
> we can't just clear some of those controls because the processor says
> to do so. So I think our current treatment of the MSR high bits is
> appropriate (if it tells us to zero one of the control bits that we
> make use of, we are in trouble -- we have a processor that isn't
> backwards compatible!). 
> 

Right. BUG_ON() is correct because the processor does not meet the
programmer's assumption. 

> I also feel uneasy about setting extra bits (as specified by the MSR
> low bits), but I reason that if we are told to set bits of flags
> which are currently architecturally-undefined then it is reasonable
> to let the processor tell us what to do with them. Which is why I do
> respect the MSR low bits.
> 

This is okay because newer processors simply provide more settings, i.e
1 => 0 or 1. The code usually is written with the setting = 1. Some VMM
may use the setting 0 for new processors if it can benefit from that.

> 
>  -- Keir

Jun
---
Intel Open Source Technology Center

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel