Re: [Xen-devel] Please review the key 4.4 release docs

["Zhang, Yang Z" <yang.z.zhang@xxxxxxxxx>]

George Dunlap wrote on 2014-03-15:
> On 03/14/2014 05:24 PM, George Dunlap wrote:
>> On 03/11/2014 01:23 AM, Zhang, Yang Z wrote:
>>> George Dunlap wrote on 2014-03-10:
>>>> On 03/10/2014 04:27 AM, Zhang, Yang Z wrote:
>>>>> Russell Pavlicek wrote on 2014-03-10:
>>>>>> I have done my best to compile the various key release documents
>>>>>> for the 4.4 release.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> All have hyperlinks from the download page:
>>>>>> http://www.xenproject.org/downloads/xen-archives/supported-xen-4
>>>>>> 4-
>>>>>> s
>>>>>> er
>>>>>> i
>>>>>> es/ xen-440.html
>>>>> I thought that we have agreed that we will move the nested
>>>>> virtualization
>>>> from experimental to 1.0 or something else in Xen 4.4 release note.
>>>> But it seems it still in experimental state and there is no
>>>> mention of it in the release note.
>>>> 
>>>> Well we discussed it, but there were too many things still missing
>>>> to call it a properly supported feature: in particular, doubts
>>>> about how well shadow-on-hap would work, which would be a
>>>> potential security
>>> Actually, I'd like to know all potential nested issues and I will
>>> try to solve it if possible. But the problem is that I am not clear
>>> about those issues that you guys mentioned. Is there any thread
>>> talk about them?
>> 
>> I think I was thinking along the lines of what I wrote in this thread:
>> 
>> Msg-ID <52E28EFB.3020008@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> 
>> It seems there the minimum thing for a "1.0" release is that an L1
>> admin must not be able to do anything to affect an L0; and thinks at
>> the moment likely to do so are enabling PoD (and probably also
>> paging) for L2 guests.  It's OK if enabling PoD crashes the *L1*
>> hypervisor (because that's under the L1 admin's control); but it
>> must not be allowed to crash / DoS the L0 hypervisor.
> 
> BTW, I take it that you're only supporting 64-bit hypervisors at the moment?
> A few weeks ago I tried Win7's "XP Compatibility Mode" with a 32-bit
> guest and it just gave me weird errors when trying to start an L2
> guest.  64-bit worked just fine, however.
> 

Yes. 32bit is not covered.

> I don't think 32-bit L1's are particularly important, but it's
> officially not supported, that should probably be documented on the wiki page.

Sure. I will update the wiki.

> 
>   -George
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel


Best regards,
Yang



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel