Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 3/3] paravirt: rename paravirt_enabled to paravirt_legacy

[Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 08/02/16 15:55, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 10:39:43AM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>> It does. Very much IIRC, the problem was not caused by an access to MSR but
>> rather some sort of address not being available somewhere.
> See below.
>
>>> - microcode application on Xen: we've had this before. The hypervisor
>>> should do that (if it doesn't do so already).
>> it does.
> Good.
>
>>> So yes, that paravirt_enabled() thing should go away. Even more so if we
>>> have CPUID leaf 0x4... reserved for hypervisors.
>> I actually think this was the original proposal until we realized we had
>> paravirt_enabled(). So we can go back to checking CPUID 0x40000000.
>>
>> We might also be able to test for (x86_hyper!=NULL) and have guests that do
>> microcode management prior to init_hypervisor() rely on hypervisors ignoring
>> MSR accesses (as they do today).
> Right, so the early loader can't do that as on 32-bit it runs even
> before paging has been enabled. So I *think* the thing with CPUID would
> be best. What does the xen hypervisor return in regs when I do CPUID(4)?
> I.e., how do I reliably detect it in the guest?
>
> I can whip up a quick patch and get rid of paravirt_enabled() while at
> it...
>

For compatibility with other virtualisation specs, Xen's cpuid leaves
shift depending on configuration.

Spec at
http://xenbits.xen.org/gitweb/?p=xen.git;a=blob;f=xen/include/public/arch-x86/cpuid.h;h=d709340f18d089560b959835eabb7b6609542c7e;hb=HEAD#l33

Basically, they are either at 0x40000000, or 0x40000100 if viridian or
vmware compatibility has been enabled.

~Andrew

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