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

Re: [PATCH v4 02/10] x86/vmx: add IPT cpu feature

On 02.07.2020 16:14, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi,
> On 02/07/2020 14:30, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 02.07.2020 11:57, Julien Grall wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> On 02/07/2020 10:18, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 02.07.2020 10:54, Julien Grall wrote:
>>>>> On 02/07/2020 09:50, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>> On 02.07.2020 10:42, Julien Grall wrote:
>>>>>>> On 02/07/2020 09:29, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>>>> I'm with Andrew here, fwiw, as long as the little bit of code that
>>>>>>>> is actually put in common/ or include/xen/ doesn't imply arbitrary
>>>>>>>> restrictions on acceptable values.
>>>>>>> Well yes the code is simple. However, the code as it is wouldn't be
>>>>>>> usuable on other architecture without additional work (aside arch
>>>>>>> specific code). For instance, there is no way to map the buffer outside
>>>>>>> of Xen as it is all x86 specific.
>>>>>>> If you want the allocation to be in the common code, then the
>>>>>>> infrastructure to map/unmap the buffer should also be in common code.
>>>>>>> Otherwise, there is no point to allocate it in common.
>>>>>> I don't think I agree here - I see nothing wrong with exposing of
>>>>>> the memory being arch specific, when allocation is generic. This
>>>>>> is no different from, in just x86, allocation logic being common
>>>>>> to PV and HVM, but exposing being different for both.
>>>>> Are you suggesting that the way it would be exposed may be different for
>>>>> other architecture?
>>>> Why not? To take a possibly extreme example - consider an arch
>>>> where (for bare metal) the buffer is specified to appear at a
>>>> fixed range of addresses.
>>> I am probably missing something here... The current goal is the buffer
>>> will be mapped in the dom0. Most likely the way to map it will be using
>>> the acquire hypercall (unless you invent a brand new one...).
>>> For a guest, you could possibly reserve a fixed range and then map it
>>> when creating the vCPU in Xen. But then, you will likely want a fixed
>>> size... So why would you bother to ask the user to define the size?
>> Because there may be the option to only populate part of the fixed
>> range?
> It was yet another extreme case ;).

Yes, sure - just to demonstrate my point.

>>> Another way to do it, would be the toolstack to do the mapping. At which
>>> point, you still need an hypercall to do the mapping (probably the
>>> hypercall acquire).
>> There may not be any mapping to do in such a contrived, fixed-range
>> environment. This scenario was specifically to demonstrate that the
>> way the mapping gets done may be arch-specific (here: a no-op)
>> despite the allocation not being so.
> You are arguing on extreme cases which I don't think is really helpful 
> here. Yes if you want to map at a fixed address in a guest you may not 
> need the acquire hypercall. But in most of the other cases (see has for 
> the tools) you will need it.
> So what's the problem with requesting to have the acquire hypercall 
> implemented in common code?

Didn't we start out by you asking that there be as little common code
as possible for the time being? I have no issue with putting the
acquire implementation there ...




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