From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Mukesh Rathor <mukesh.rathor@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [V10 PATCH 23/23] PVH xen: introduce vmexit handler
 for PVH
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 15:51:45 -0700
Message-ID: <20130823155145.479a82a4@mantra.us.oracle.com>
References: <1374631171-15224-1-git-send-email-mukesh.rathor@oracle.com>
	<1374631171-15224-24-git-send-email-mukesh.rathor@oracle.com>
	<CAFLBxZYqY29M44S4wmaFbOB3ExbPu7D046D1qdGkr4LztMuLEQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130822162257.2e08c998@mantra.us.oracle.com>
	<5217287802000078000EDE3D@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
Received: from mail6.bemta14.messagelabs.com ([193.109.254.103])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <mukesh.rathor@oracle.com>) id 1VD0Cw-0006eh-16
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Fri, 23 Aug 2013 22:51:54 +0000
In-Reply-To: <5217287802000078000EDE3D@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>, George Dunlap <dunlapg@umich.edu>, "keir.xen@gmail.com" <keir.xen@gmail.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On Fri, 23 Aug 2013 08:16:40 +0100
"Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:

> >>> On 23.08.13 at 01:22, Mukesh Rathor <mukesh.rathor@oracle.com>
> >>> wrote:
> > In general, we should have less interecepts for PVH, eg, there
> > should be no MSR_IA32_CR_PAT intercept.
> 
> How that? All memory management supposedly is HVM-like, and
> PAT is an integral part of memory management. Unless I'm
> mistaken, not intercepting PAT writes would mean you allow the
> guest access to the physical MSR, which surely is wrong.

Here's HVM code:

    if ( cpu_has_vmx_pat && paging_mode_hap(d) )
        vmx_disable_intercept_for_msr(v, MSR_IA32_CR_PAT,
            MSR_TYPE_R | MSR_TYPE_W);

We require both for PVH, see pvh_check_requirements. My understanding,
guest would write to GUEST_PAT and not HOST_PAT.

thanks
Mukesh