From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Mukesh Rathor <mukesh.rathor@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] pvh: clearly specify used parameters in
 vcpu_guest_context
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 13:56:54 -0800
Message-ID: <20131115135654.52e52bd4@mantra.us.oracle.com>
References: <1384530622-31703-1-git-send-email-roger.pau@citrix.com>
	<52865AC60200007800103AAE@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
	<52864E97.9020402@eu.citrix.com>
	<52865DCB0200007800103AD8@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.bemta5.messagelabs.com ([195.245.231.135])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <mukesh.rathor@oracle.com>) id 1VhROw-0004mm-M9
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 21:58:06 +0000
In-Reply-To: <52865DCB0200007800103AD8@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: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org>, Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>, Roger Pau Monne <roger.pau@citrix.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On Fri, 15 Nov 2013 16:45:47 +0000
"Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:

> >>> On 15.11.13 at 17:40, George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>
> >>> wrote:
> > On 15/11/13 16:32, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>>>> On 15.11.13 at 16:50, Roger Pau Monne <roger.pau@citrix.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/domain.c
> >>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/domain.c
> >>> @@ -704,9 +704,11 @@ int arch_set_info_guest(
> >>>           /* PVH 32bitfixme */
> >>>           ASSERT(!compat);
> >>>   
> >>> -        if ( c(ctrlreg[1]) || c(ldt_base) || c(ldt_ents) ||
> >>> +        if ( c(ctrlreg[0]) || c(ctrlreg[1]) || c(ctrlreg[2]) ||
> >>> +             c(ctrlreg[4]) || c(ldt_base) || c(ldt_ents) ||
> >> I think it should actually be a bug for the guest to request an
> >> all blank CR0 or CR4. Minimally CR0.PE, CR0.PG, and CR4.PAE
> >> would seem to be a valid requirement to be set.
> >>
> >> Apart from that ctrlreg[] is an 8-element array... And I don't
> >> see debugreg[] being verified at all.
> >>
> >>>                c(user_regs.cs) || c(user_regs.ss) ||
> >>> c(user_regs.es) || c(user_regs.ds) || c(user_regs.fs) ||
> >>> c(user_regs.gs) ||
> >>> +             c(kernel_ss) || c(kernel_sp) ||
> >>> c.nat->gs_base_kernel ||
> >> So George and/or Mukesh found it necessary to set
> >> gs_base_kernel, and you rip it out? I'm curious as to what
> >> they're going to say...
> > 
> > I didn't find it necessary; I was mostly focused on merging the PVH
> > and HVM codepaths without causing any regressions.  It's not
> > obvious to me what's special about gs_base_kernel, and I haven't
> > yet gone back to try to find out why Mukesh did it that way.

Hi,

We had talked about this while ago, but upon boot, the first thing
a vcpu needs is access to kernel data structure. (A secondary vcpu
is bootstrapped way up into the kernel). It would be possible to
get rid of gs_base_kernel, but will take some work on the linux side. 
I can try and test it out, and let you guys know.

thanks
mukesh