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 15:35:50 -0800
Message-ID: <20131115153550.3e899e0a@mantra.us.oracle.com>
References: <1384530622-31703-1-git-send-email-roger.pau@citrix.com>
	<52865AC60200007800103AAE@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
	<20131115165509.GA58145@deinos.phlegethon.org>
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.bemta4.messagelabs.com ([85.158.143.247])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <mukesh.rathor@oracle.com>) id 1VhSwf-00030g-Hj
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 23:37:02 +0000
In-Reply-To: <20131115165509.GA58145@deinos.phlegethon.org>
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: Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org>
Cc: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>, Roger Pau Monne <roger.pau@citrix.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On Fri, 15 Nov 2013 17:55:09 +0100
Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org> wrote:

> At 16:32 +0000 on 15 Nov (1384529574), 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.
> 
> I think zero is better.  Guest CRx are explicitly _not_ loaded from 
> these fields so making them look like valid CRx values is just
> confusing.

+1.

> But even better would be to allow all these fields to be set to any
> valid values, and to load the state into the guest vCPU.  I think
> that's going to be more sensible once the current restriction that PVH
> vCPUs are always in long more goes away.

Agree, it can be designed much better when the 32bit guest support
is added.

thanks,
mukesh