Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 10/10] x86/cpuid: Always enable faulting for the control domain

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 10.03.17 at 18:10, <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 28/02/17 09:31, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 27.02.17 at 16:10, <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On 22/02/17 10:10, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>>> On 22.02.17 at 11:00, <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> On 22/02/17 09:23, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 20.02.17 at 12:00, <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>> The domain builder in libxc no longer depends on leaked CPUID 
>>>>>>> information to
>>>>>>> properly construct HVM domains.  Remove the control domain exclusion.
>>>>>> Am I missing some intermediate step? As long as there's a raw
>>>>>> CPUID invocation in xc_cpuid_x86.c (which is still there in staging
>>>>>> and I don't recall this series removing it) it at least _feels_ unsafe.
>>>>> Strictly speaking, the domain builder part of this was completed after
>>>>> my xsave adjustments.  All the guest-type-dependent information now
>>>>> comes from non-cpuid sources in libxc, or Xen ignores the toolstack
>>>>> values and recalculates information itself.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, until the Intel leaves were complete, dom0 had a hard time
>>>>> booting with this change as there were no toolstack-provided policy and
>>>>> no leakage from hardware.
>>>> So what are the CPUID uses in libxc then needed for at this point?
>>>> Could they be removed in a prereq patch to make clear all needed
>>>> information is now being obtained via hypercalls?
>>> I'd prefer to defer that work.  The next chunk of CPUID work is going to
>>> be redesigning and reimplementing the hypervisor/libxc interface, and
>>> all cpuid() calls in libxc will fall out there, but its not a trivial
>>> set of changes to make.
>> With that, could you live with deferring the patch here until then?
> 
> We currently have a lot of dom0 implicit dependencies on leaked CPUID
> state into PV dom0.
> 
> With this series, I believe I have identified all leaked dependencies,
> and I really want to prevent is introducing any new implicit dependences
> accidentally.

I can certainly understand this, but the state libxc code is in then
makes this a rather implicit thing, instead of being fully explicit. I
think I'd like to have another (tools or REST) maintainer voice a 3rd
opinion. Extending Cc list ...

Jan


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