|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xl: remove apic option for PVH guests
On 3/2/18 5:29 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 02.03.18 at 12:09, <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 01, 2018 at 05:01:55PM +0000, Roger Pau Monné wrote: >>> On Thu, Mar 01, 2018 at 04:01:23PM +0000, Wei Liu wrote: >>>> On Thu, Mar 01, 2018 at 03:57:18PM +0000, Andrew Cooper wrote: >>>>> On 01/03/18 12:22, Wei Liu wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 10:20:53AM +0000, Roger Pau Monne wrote: >>>>>>> XSA-256 forces the local APIC to always be enabled for PVH guests, so >>>>>>> ignore any apic option for PVH guests. Update the documentation >>>>>>> accordingly. >>>>>> I think how I will approach this is to dictate that PVH always has LAPIC >>>>>> in our in-tree document, then use that as the justification for this >>>>>> change. That's the consensus from 2 years ago, right? >>>>>> >>>>>> Or we're just working around the limitation in our code base, and users >>>>>> may demand a no-LAPIC PVH guest just because... >>>>> >>>>> Currently, Xen enforces that HVM guests have an LAPIC. This is because >>>>> making the non-LAPIC case function correctly/safely devolved into a >>>>> massive rats nest and I stopped trying to fix it after 2 days of trying. >>>>> >>>>> At the moment, it would be wise to discuss whether the non-LAPIC case is >>>>> actually sensible. I personally see no value in keeping it. >>>>> >>>> >>>> +1 >>>> >>>>> If someone can come up with a convincing usecase for keeping it, then >>>>> ok, but the barrier for this is increasing all the time, especially now >>>>> that hardware acceleration and posted interrupts means that a >>>>> pipeline-virtualised APIC is faster and more efficient than any of our >>>>> event channel mechanisms. >>>> >>>> +1 >>> >>> I've looked at the in-tree pvh document and it just refers to the local >>> APIC in this sentence: >>> >>> "AP startup can be performed using hypercalls or the local APIC if present." >>> >>> I guess the trailing "if present" could be removed, but it's not >>> colliding with this patch. >>> >>> I'm happy with rebasing this patch and applying the above change, is >>> there any other document that should be changed? >> >> Can we make it more explicit. Like >> >> VCPUs for PVH must have local APIC and it can't be disabled. >> >> ? > > To be honest I liker Roger's suggestion better. And yet better > would imo be if we left that sentence alone, unless we really mean > to close that road for anyone wanting to take on making APIC- > less guests work securely. > > Jan I believe that's exactly what Andrew proposed in https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2018-03/msg00089.html removing the wording doesn't exclude someone from adding it later but it does make it clear that its not available today. -- Doug Goldstein Attachment:
signature.asc _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
|
 |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |