Re: [PATCH 07/11] x86/altp2m: introduce p2m_ram_rw_ve type.

[Ed White <edmund.h.white@intel.com>]

On 01/16/2015 09:52 AM, Tim Deegan wrote:
> At 12:38 -0800 on 15 Jan (1421321902), Ed White wrote:
>> On 01/15/2015 09:03 AM, Tim Deegan wrote:
>>> At 13:26 -0800 on 09 Jan (1420806397), Ed White wrote:
>>>> This is treated exactly like p2m_ram_rw, except that suppress_ve is not
>>>> set in the EPTE.
>>>
>>> I don't think this is going to work -- you probably want to support
>>> p2m_ram_ro at least, and maybe other types, but duplicating each of
>>> them as a 'type foo with #VE' doesn't seem right.
>>>
>>> Since the default is to set the ignore-#ve flag everywhere, how about
>>> having an operation to enable #ve for a frame that just clears that
>>> bit, and then having all other updates to altp2m entries preserve it?
>>
>> I hear you, but #VE is only even relevant for the in-domain agent
>> model, and as the only current user of that model we not only don't
>> want #VE to work on other page types, we specifically want it to be
>> prohibited.
> 
> I see.  I think it would be very useful if you could add some
> documentation of the new feature, covering this sort of thing, as well
> as the exact semantics of the hypercalls.
> 
>> Can we do it this way, and then change it later if required?
> 
> No thank you.  It shouldn't be hard to do it the clean way from the
> start.

The problem with doing it the clean way is that I have to use EPTE
bit 63 even on hardware that doesn't support it. That's not a
problem hardware-wise, because, at least for Intel, bit 63 is don't
care for non-#VE hardware. It does mean Xen can't use it for
anything else though.

If you look at the code in the current patch series, for non-#VE
hardware I don't use that bit, the nested page fault handler
decides whether to emulate #VE based on the p2m_type value.

Ed