From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Don Slutz Subject: Re: [PATCH for-4.5 v6 05/16] tools: Add vmware_port support Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 14:25:12 -0400 Message-ID: <54230C88.6080207@terremark.com> References: <1411236447-7435-1-git-send-email-dslutz@verizon.com> <1411236447-7435-6-git-send-email-dslutz@verizon.com> <1411393315.18331.104.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com> <54204FA5.7020104@citrix.com> <5420930A.2020300@terremark.com> <5422F03B.30900@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: <5422F03B.30900@eu.citrix.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: George Dunlap , Don Slutz , Andrew Cooper , Ian Campbell Cc: Tim Deegan , Kevin Tian , Keir Fraser , Jun Nakajima , Stefano Stabellini , Ian Jackson , Eddie Dong , xen-devel@lists.xen.org, Aravind Gopalakrishnan , Jan Beulich , Boris Ostrovsky , Suravee Suthikulpanit List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 09/24/14 12:24, George Dunlap wrote: > On 09/22/2014 10:22 PM, Don Slutz wrote: >> On 09/22/14 12:34, Andrew Cooper wrote: >>> On 22/09/14 14:41, Ian Campbell wrote: >>>> On Sat, 2014-09-20 at 14:07 -0400, Don Slutz wrote: >>>>> This new libxl_domain_create_info field is used to set >>>>> XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_vmware_port for the xc_domain_create() routine. >>>> Does this really need to be a CDF, rather than a domctl/hvm param? >>> I have made the argument that many things which are currently HVM >>> Params >>> should be CDF, as they absolutely should be set and immutable for the >>> entire lifetime of the domain. >>> >>> From recollection, we have had several XSAs in the past which are >>> directly attributable to the toolstack or guest being able to play with >>> an (insufficiently locked down) HVM param after boot. >>> >>> Using a CDF avoids potential issues along these lines. >> >> It also allow setting up v->arch.hvm_vmx.exception_bitmap at >> the right time. domctl/hvm params are setup much latter in >> the life of a domain. > > Isn't that already modified on a cr change (a la vmx_update_guest_cr())? > The following is not true for my testing: if ( (!vmx_unrestricted_guest(v)) && (realmode != v->arch.hvm_vmx.vmx_realmode) ) { vmx_unrestricted_guest() is true. > Or did you mean the SVM side? > Also needed there. > I'm not making an argument either way (although at the moment I'm more > sympathetic to Andy's view), just questioning whether setting the exit > flag is that much of an argument one way or another. > Since Andy and the exit flag are saying the same thing, I do not care which is a better argument. (I.E. the way it is coded in this patch). -Don Slutz > -George >