From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] paravirt: rename paravirt_enabled to
 paravirt_legacy
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2016 16:55:07 +0100
Message-ID: <20160208155507.GF28980@pd.tnic>
References: <1454733014-15237-1-git-send-email-mcgrof@kernel.org>
 <1454733014-15237-4-git-send-email-mcgrof@kernel.org>
 <CALCETrU3DaqUeo-n2dV_UmeAcTEV2dQRtxyb-atMP6WFDDif3Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160206085930.GF25240@wotan.suse.de>
 <CALCETrWSiN+te_0aYH0NH9oBzGALLhKqxkupiGwbAm2GdCNyVQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160206220437.GA4435@pd.tnic>
 <56B8B6BF.6030007@oracle.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <56B8B6BF.6030007@oracle.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>, "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@suse.com>, "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org>, cocci@systeme.lip6.fr, Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>, mcb30@ipxe.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@virtuozzo.com>, Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>, Robert Moore <robert.moore@intel.com>, Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@osg.samsung.com>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>, Xen Devel <xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>, Lv Zheng <lv.zheng@intel.com>, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, long.wanglong@huawei.com, Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@intel.com>, qiuxishi@huawei.com, Andrey Ryabinin <ryabinin.a.a@gmail.com>, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>, david.e.box@intel
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 10:39:43AM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> It does. Very much IIRC, the problem was not caused by an access to MSR but
> rather some sort of address not being available somewhere.

See below.

> >- microcode application on Xen: we've had this before. The hypervisor
> >should do that (if it doesn't do so already).
> 
> it does.

Good.

> >So yes, that paravirt_enabled() thing should go away. Even more so if we
> >have CPUID leaf 0x4... reserved for hypervisors.
> 
> I actually think this was the original proposal until we realized we had
> paravirt_enabled(). So we can go back to checking CPUID 0x40000000.
> 
> We might also be able to test for (x86_hyper!=NULL) and have guests that do
> microcode management prior to init_hypervisor() rely on hypervisors ignoring
> MSR accesses (as they do today).

Right, so the early loader can't do that as on 32-bit it runs even
before paging has been enabled. So I *think* the thing with CPUID would
be best. What does the xen hypervisor return in regs when I do CPUID(4)?
I.e., how do I reliably detect it in the guest?

I can whip up a quick patch and get rid of paravirt_enabled() while at
it...

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.