[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 3/4 V3] X86: MPX IA32_BNDCFGS msr handle
At 11:12 +0000 on 28 Nov (1385633520), Liu, Jinsong wrote: > Tim Deegan wrote: > > At 03:17 +0000 on 28 Nov (1385605079), Liu, Jinsong wrote: > >> Andrew Cooper wrote: > >>> On 27/11/13 15:02, Liu, Jinsong wrote: > >>>> Andrew Cooper wrote: > >>>>> It is very common to have pools of servers made of different > >>>>> generations of CPU. E.g. Ivy Bridge and Haswell. To safely > >>>>> migrate a VM, the feature set the VM can see must be the common > >>>>> subset of the two. > >>>>> > >>>>> ~Andrew > >>>> Yes -- but that's not a reason to prevent MPX feature (or, any new > >>>> features) -- otherwise you have to prevent any new features. > >>>> The right place to control cpuid policy of a pool is at higher > >>>> level, where it has full information of the pool machines and so > >>>> it's right place to make decision what cpuid feature set would be > >>>> proper for the specific pool. > >>>> > >>> That is exactly a reason to prevent MPX. > >>> > >>> If the domain cpuid policy (which is set by the toolstack) states > >>> that MPX should be disabled, then MPX must be hidden from the HVM > >>> guest, even if the hardware supports MPX. > >> > >> No. That's _not_ a reason to prevent MPX -- toolstack still has the > >> right to disable MPX, no matter h/w support MPX or not. Refer > >> xc_cpuid_set(). > > > > There seems to be a lot of confusion here. As far as I can tell, the > > only sensible mechanism is: > > > > - If the hardware doesn't support MPX, mask it in guest CPUID. > > - If the domain cpuid policy masks the MPX feature, disable it. > > - Otherwise, enable it, and advertise it in guest CPUID. > > > > In any case, the CPUID fields seen by the guest _must_ match whether > > the feature is available. > > > > Tim. > > Do you mean xc_cpuid_set() is some confusion? Yes, it's some buggy that need > got fix at tools side. > > I take it here as an example just indicate 'toolstack has the right to > disable/mask hardware feature, if it want to do so per domain cpuid policy'. > In that case, I think you and Andrew are agreeing with each other. :) The important detail is that if the toolstack has disabled the feature using the CPUID policy, the hypervisor should not expose the feature to the guest. Cheers, Tim. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |