From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>
To: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
Cc: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org>,
Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>,
Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Subject: Re: PVH cleanups after 4.5
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2014 11:27:04 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20141205162704.GG472@laptop.dumpdata.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <54818C13.8020207@citrix.com>
On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 10:42:27AM +0000, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 05/12/14 09:54, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Fri, 2014-12-05 at 10:49 +0100, Tim Deegan wrote:
> >> At 09:20 +0000 on 05 Dec (1417767654), Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>>>>> On 04.12.14 at 18:25, <tim@xen.org> wrote:
> >>>> Potential feature flags, based on whiteboard notes at the session.
> >>>> Things that are 'Yes' in both columns might not need actual flags :)
> >>>>
> >>>> 'HVM' 'PVH'
> >>>> 64bit hypercalls Yes Yes
> >>>> 32bit hypercalls Yes No
> >>> Iiuc the lack of support of 32-bit hypercalls is simply because PVH
> >>> guests aren't expected to use them as being always 64-bit right
> >>> now. I.e. I can't really see why we couldn't just enable them once
> >>> the 64-bit hypercall tables got combined, in which case we wouldn't
> >>> need a feature flag here either.
> >> Agreed -- I think the same will apply to a few other things, like shadow
> >> pagetables and some of the other MM tricks.
> > Might we want to constrain a given PVH domain to only make 32- or 64-bit
> > hypercalls?
> >
> > Or do we consider already having crossed that bridge with HVM enough
> > reason to allow it for PVH? I'm wonder if that, even if it is
> > technically possible to support not, doing so might mitigate some
> > potential security issues down the line. There's obviously a tradeoff
> > against in-guest flexibility though.
>
> Madating a 32/64bit split serves only to cause booting issues; you need
> to know a-priori what the eventual kernel is going to be before you
> build the domain. This is an awkward issue with PV domains which
> *really* wants not to apply to PVH as well.
>
> PVH guests with the plan of "HVM - qemu" should be able to fully choose
> their operating mode, and allow for in-guest bootstrapping which is far
> superior from a security/isolation point of view than toolstack
> bootstrapping.
Or another use-case: kexec-ing from within an 64-bit PVH guest to an
32-bit PVH or vice-versa.
>
> ~Andrew
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
> http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-12-05 16:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-12-04 17:25 PVH cleanups after 4.5 Tim Deegan
2014-12-05 9:20 ` Jan Beulich
2014-12-05 9:49 ` Tim Deegan
2014-12-05 9:54 ` Ian Campbell
2014-12-05 10:42 ` Andrew Cooper
2014-12-05 16:27 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk [this message]
2014-12-05 10:55 ` David Vrabel
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20141205162704.GG472@laptop.dumpdata.com \
--to=konrad.wilk@oracle.com \
--cc=Ian.Campbell@citrix.com \
--cc=JBeulich@suse.com \
--cc=andrew.cooper3@citrix.com \
--cc=tim@xen.org \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.