From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933449AbcA0Oun (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Jan 2016 09:50:43 -0500 Received: from smtp.citrix.com ([66.165.176.89]:25126 "EHLO SMTP.CITRIX.COM" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932393AbcA0Oul (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Jan 2016 09:50:41 -0500 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.22,354,1449532800"; d="scan'208";a="327969568" Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v1 04/12] xen/hvmlite: Bootstrap HVMlite guest To: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk , "Luis R. Rodriguez" References: <56A2C99A.2050701@citrix.com> <56A39300.8050802@citrix.com> <20160125221920.GG20964@wotan.suse.de> <56A6A7C6.8060906@oracle.com> <20160126203023.GI20964@wotan.suse.de> <56A7EA6A.2030502@oracle.com> <20160127000435.GK20964@wotan.suse.de> <20160127144240.GB552@char.us.oracle.com> CC: Boris Ostrovsky , Juergen Gross , Jeremy Fitzhardinge , Rusty Russell , Andrew Cooper , X86 ML , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Andy Lutomirski , "H. Peter Anvin" , , "Borislav Petkov" , =?UTF-8?Q?Roger_Pau_Monn=c3=a9?= From: David Vrabel Message-ID: <56A8D93C.6040304@citrix.com> Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 14:50:36 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/38.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160127144240.GB552@char.us.oracle.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-DLP: MIA1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 27/01/16 14:42, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 08:54:56PM -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> On Jan 26, 2016 6:16 PM, "Luis R. Rodriguez" wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez >> wrote: >>>> You go: >>>> >>>> hvmlite_start_xen() --> >>>> HVM stub >>>> startup_64() | (startup_32() >>> >>> Hrm, does HVMlite work well with load_ucode_bsp(), note the patches to >>> rebrand pv_enabled() to pv_legacy() or whatever, this PV type will not >>> be legacy or crap / old, so we'd need a way to catch it if we should >>> not use that code for this PV type. This begs the question, are you >>> also sure other callers in startup_32() or startup_64() might be OK as >>> well where previously guarded with pv_enabled() ? >> >> Actually this call can't be used, and if early code used it prior to >> setup_arch() it'd be a bug as its only properly set until later. Vetting >> for correctness of all code call is still required though and perhaps we do >> need something to catch now this PV type on early code such as this one if >> we don't want it. From what I've gathered before on other bsp ucode we >> don't want ucode loaded for PV guest types through these mechanisms. > > It may help to not think of PVH/hvmlite as PV. It really is HVM with a lot > of emulated devices removed. > > How does early microcode work on EFI? Does the EFI stub code have an early > microcode loading code ? Surely the interesting comparison here is how is (early) microcode loading disabled in KVM guests? We should use the same mechanism for HVMlite guests. David