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

Re: [PATCH] x86/AMD: adjust SYSCFG, TOM, etc exposure to deal with running nested

  • To: Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>
  • From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2021 11:30:53 +0200
  • Arc-authentication-results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=suse.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=suse.com; dkim=pass header.d=suse.com; arc=none
  • Arc-message-signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=lP3PAa9ImJi4V7NcEa9ZEhbjp/V50ejF5y5yP63kPJM=; b=De/4q1CXpCNBG7ADh6TuLl0W685INxTNR9eSzaBZ2RHDy+D3IUpr+RrbxoPnkTLijrCc4sc/ApzywEM7yYppO8OqRXawJQgdEtW6ODGtTZhBjA8T/qyXnine6fMAt2O4XtKhWHRtAMkC/0YhLOUwBd8GfIbRs6Y0bvjODy7Jj/IAz3o9qD5nyXxf2M9kJ8lzpJVHjEc9q5LD6QPI4kIFqUORQJllaN0yhStMGwqLZrzsL/IPPYpvL811NKveSsaqZJ1Y0aBJP/k3cucjhuCn7i4glDMm8GMdE2+T6ZJXBLanLybgGHl4ruG3lovnyqFz0Yt8XkQBpcsOyWdlODBjkg==
  • Arc-seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=UFjQ89eApk4l/1dVxqNdEaVrpuzyJehiRR0MJnDcnRE9cmDF7dzAN+CKDSVKsZAvbGMC7f81LODTSDf4dZ1qO+L3/0KLc1F6r//S/5ENHSOtHRV02J57XKg3RzUJDZwSwTS39EfDtfGoGeIQkbtbrJmqj2op9h4y/xFwh+XxNAcAeGr0TqzXuZmMOHdHJ9h+wdBK56qps+4+jGCQabJ9H5Kj4d7TXQGVCD1X1RrOV5r2OOqvRF0GVBHNJvXITPQr7Zd7w9vV4nvTdagdF/hRPImPjg1vVsuSBWrqND7s9HuTEIxO3y0myyvYtPk6dwFirMErgKI/yyK3lzC85g9G7w==
  • Authentication-results: lists.xenproject.org; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;lists.xenproject.org; dmarc=none action=none header.from=suse.com;
  • Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, Wei Liu <wl@xxxxxxx>, Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>, "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Delivery-date: Mon, 19 Jul 2021 09:31:02 +0000
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>

On 19.07.2021 11:18, Julien Grall wrote:
> On 13/07/2021 08:22, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> In the original change I neglected to consider the case of us running as
>> L1 under another Xen. In this case we're not Dom0, so the underlying Xen
>> wouldn't permit us access to these MSRs. As an immediate workaround use
>> rdmsr_safe(); I don't view this as the final solution though, as the
>> original problem the earlier change tried to address also applies when
>> running nested. Yet it is then unclear to me how to properly address the
>> issue: We shouldn't generally expose the MSR values, but handing back
>> zero (or effectively any other static value) doesn't look appropriate
>> either.
> IIUC, the unsolved problem is a Linux 3.12 dom0 running on top of the L1 
> Xen. The kernel is quite old (and looks to be unsupported), so are we 
> expecting anyone to build a new stack with a newer Xen and such dom0?
> If the answer is unlikely, then I think it would be fair to keep the 
> limitation until someone comes up with such setup.

I might want to put it differently: If you want to run nested, you
shouldn't be using this old a kernel for your Dom0. You saying "looks
to be unsupported" is, aiui, a statement from upstream perspective,
which distros may have a different view on.

>> Fixes: bfcdaae9c210 ("x86/AMD: expose SYSCFG, TOM, TOM2, and IORRs to Dom0")
>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
> Reviewed-by: Julien Grall <jgrall@xxxxxxxxxx>





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