From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: George Dunlap Subject: Re: Please review the key 4.4 release docs Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 17:24:41 +0000 Message-ID: <53233B59.8080208@eu.citrix.com> References: <55E78A57290FB64FA0D3CF672F9F3DA21A7000@SJCPEX01CL03.citrite.net> <531D8BE5.2070607@eu.citrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: "Zhang, Yang Z" , Russell Pavlicek , "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 03/11/2014 01:23 AM, Zhang, Yang Z wrote: > George Dunlap wrote on 2014-03-10: >> On 03/10/2014 04:27 AM, Zhang, Yang Z wrote: >>> Russell Pavlicek wrote on 2014-03-10: >>>> I have done my best to compile the various key release documents >>>> for the 4.4 release. >>>> >>>> All have hyperlinks from the download page: >>>> http://www.xenproject.org/downloads/xen-archives/supported-xen-44-s >>>> er >>>> i >>>> es/ xen-440.html >>> I thought that we have agreed that we will move the nested >>> virtualization >> from experimental to 1.0 or something else in Xen 4.4 release note. >> But it seems it still in experimental state and there is no mention of >> it in the release note. >> >> Well we discussed it, but there were too many things still missing to >> call it a properly supported feature: in particular, doubts about how >> well shadow-on-hap would work, which would be a potential security > Actually, I'd like to know all potential nested issues and I will try to solve it if possible. But the problem is that I am not clear about those issues that you guys mentioned. Is there any thread talk about them? I think I was thinking along the lines of what I wrote in this thread: Msg-ID <52E28EFB.3020008@eu.citrix.com> It seems there the minimum thing for a "1.0" release is that an L1 admin must not be able to do anything to affect an L0; and thinks at the moment likely to do so are enabling PoD (and probably also paging) for L2 guests. It's OK if enabling PoD crashes the *L1* hypervisor (because that's under the L1 admin's control); but it must not be allowed to crash / DoS the L0 hypervisor. -George > >> issue. (On my to-do list is to collect these somewhere so we have a >> clear set of criteria for moving nested HVM from "tech preview" to >> "supported".) > Yes, it makes sense. > >> It would be good to put something in the release note, however, to say >> how much it has progressed. I'll see what I can do. > Yes, nested was moving forward in last year. It's better to tell this to people since lots of people unaware of this feature. > >> -George > > Best regards, > Yang > >