[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH for-4.5 v6 00/16] Xen VMware tools support

On Mon, 2014-09-22 at 16:38 +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
> On 09/22/2014 04:34 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Mon, 2014-09-22 at 16:19 +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
> >> On 09/22/2014 02:56 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 2014-09-20 at 14:07 -0400, Don Slutz wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I picked this subset to start with because it only has changes in
> >>>> Xen.
> >>>>
> >>>> Some of this code is already in QEMU
> >>> As I suggest in my reply to one for the rpc port patches it's not clear
> >>> that any of this needs to be in Xen rather than qemu in the first place.
> >>>
> >>> I came to think this even more once I saw the save/restore support...
> >> I don't think qemu can get notified on either cpuid or #GP faults, can it?
> > I understand the need for the cpuid bits, I should have made that clear.
> >
> >> A big chunk of the functionality here is to allow a userspace process to
> >> transparently make the "hypercalls" without the OS needing to explicitly
> >> give it access to the IO space, by trapping the resulting #GP faults and
> >> checking to see if they are IO instructions .  If that's functionality
> >> we think is important, then it will have to be done in Xen, I think.
> > Ah, the need to #GP was what I had missed, I was thinking it was just a
> > regular I/O port access.
> >
> > Having trapped the #GP and decoded it into an IO access, is there
> > anything stopping us forwarding that to qemu for consideration?
> >
> > (I confess I'm not sure why this is a #GP thing and not a VTd/SVM I/O
> > access trap, just like if userspace mmaps /dev/ioports, but I'll trust
> > that's just my lack of x86 hw virt knowledge)
> I'm not 100% sure of this, but my understanding was that it *would* be a 
> normal IO trap *if* the guest OS gave access to that IO range to the 
> guest (via IOPL, maybe?).  But if the userspace program is not 
> explicitly given access by the OS to those ports, it will generate a #GP 
> instead.  The idea is to allow the "hypercall" to happen *without 
> cooperation* from the guest OS.
> Again, that's my understanding, someone please correct me if I'm wrong...

It sounds plausible, for sure.

Even so, why can't the result of that #GP be a calldown into qemu for
further processing?


Xen-devel mailing list



Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.