[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86/pv: Deprecate support for paging out the LDT
>>> Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> 06/28/18 6:10 PM >>> >On 28/06/18 14:35, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 26.06.18 at 13:35, <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/Kconfig >>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/Kconfig >>> @@ -161,3 +161,24 @@ endmenu >>> source "common/Kconfig" >>> >>> source "drivers/Kconfig" >>> + >>> +menu "Deprecated Functionality" >>> + >>> +config LEGACY_PV_LDT_PAGING >>> + def_bool n >>> + prompt "PV LDT Paging-out support" >>> + ---help--- >>> + For a very long time, the PV ABI has included the ability to page >>> + out the LDT by transitioning its mapping to not-present. This >>> + functionality is believed to only exist for the PV Windows XP port >>> + which never came to anything. >>> + >>> + The implementation contains a vCPU scalability limitation in a >>> + position which is prohibitively complicated to resolve. As the >>> + feature is believed to be unused in practice, removing the feature >>> + is the easiest remediation. >>> + >>> + If you discover a usecase which is broken by this option being off, >>> + please contact xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx urgently. Baring >>> + something unexpected, the code and this option will be removed. >> I think it should be said here explicitly when (or to be precise, no earlier >> than when) this is going to happen. > >I'm open to suggests, but decided not to name a specific release (if >only to avoid second-guessing our future numbering and release schedule). > >> I also think the security support status with the option enabled needs to >> be clarified. Perhaps we'd go in stages: Introduce the (default off) option, >> then (e.g. for 4.13) switch its use to security unsupported, and finally >> drop the code (e.g. for 4.14). > >I presume you mean that we should hide it behind EXPERT at that point? That's the best way to express it I guess, yes. Plus some form of remark in SUPPORT.md. >What does the middle step gets us. If its going to be off by default >and unable to be enabled by default, that is as good as deleted. Think of people only using released code: They'd notice the removed functionality only in 4.12. Removing the code right away for 4.13 could therefore be too early. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |