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

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH for-4.5 v6 05/16] tools: Add vmware_port support

On 09/24/14 12:24, George Dunlap wrote:
On 09/22/2014 10:22 PM, Don Slutz wrote:
On 09/22/14 12:34, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 22/09/14 14:41, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Sat, 2014-09-20 at 14:07 -0400, Don Slutz wrote:
This new libxl_domain_create_info field is used to set
XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_vmware_port for the xc_domain_create() routine.
Does this really need to be a CDF, rather than a domctl/hvm param?
I have made the argument that many things which are currently HVM Params
should be CDF, as they absolutely should be set and immutable for the
entire lifetime of the domain.

 From recollection, we have had several XSAs in the past which are
directly attributable to the toolstack or guest being able to play with
an (insufficiently locked down) HVM param after boot.

Using a CDF avoids potential issues along these lines.

It also allow setting up v->arch.hvm_vmx.exception_bitmap at
the right time.  domctl/hvm params are setup much latter in
the life of a domain.

Isn't that already modified on a cr change (a la vmx_update_guest_cr())?

The following is not true for my testing:

        if ( (!vmx_unrestricted_guest(v)) &&
             (realmode != v->arch.hvm_vmx.vmx_realmode) )

vmx_unrestricted_guest() is true.

Or did you mean the SVM side?

Also needed there.

I'm not making an argument either way (although at the moment I'm more sympathetic to Andy's view), just questioning whether setting the exit flag is that much of an argument one way or another.

Since Andy and the exit flag are saying the same thing, I do not
care which is a better argument.  (I.E. the way it is coded in this

   -Don Slutz


Xen-devel mailing list



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