From: Keir Fraser <keir.xen@gmail.com>
To: "Dong, Eddie" <eddie.dong@intel.com>
Cc: "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" <xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
Subject: Re: Addback capability check for non-initial features
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 07:58:46 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CA177F36.1C036%keir.xen@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1A42CE6F5F474C41B63392A5F80372B256260BAD@shsmsx501.ccr.corp.intel.com>
On 10/06/2011 07:33, "Dong, Eddie" <eddie.dong@intel.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> add back missing capability check of MSR_IA32_VMX_PROCBASED_CTLS.
>>>
>>> Besides initial configuration, adjust_vmx_controls is responsible for
>>> hardware capibility check as well. This patch add back the check.
>>
>> I suppose the CPU_BASED_VIRTUAL_INTR_PENDING addition is correct, for
>> what
>> it's worth (surely every VMX-capable CPU ever has and will support that).
>>
>> The change to CR8 detection looks mad and incorrect. You've inverted it so
>> that CR8 exits get enabled when TPR_SHADOW is available, rather than
>> when it
>
> CR8 exit is removed later on if TPR_SHADOW exist:)
Not in your patch. You remove it later if TPR_SHADOW *doesn't* exist.
> The only difference is that if there are processors that support TPR_SHADOW
> only, I can check internally if this is the concern.
> Current nested vmx is assuming CR8 exiting is presented to emulate L1 guest
> CR8 exiting. TPR_SHAOW can't trap CR8 read though cr8 write trap is OK w/ TPR
> shadow.
Hmm okay.
> Eventually I want to have a minimal common set of capability that is supported
> by all HW and is presented to L1 guest.
>
>> isn't, surely? And that can't be correct. I don't see how the CR8-exit
>> detection and enabling is wrong, as it is already.
>
> The original code for CR8 exit is correct too :)
More correct than yours :)
-- Keir
> Thx, Eddie
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-06-10 6:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-06-09 15:49 Bug in smpboot.c? John McDermott (U.S. Navy Employee)
2011-06-09 22:09 ` Keir Fraser
2011-06-10 5:36 ` Addback capability check for non-initial features Dong, Eddie
2011-06-10 5:50 ` Dong, Eddie
2011-06-10 6:05 ` Keir Fraser
2011-06-10 6:33 ` Dong, Eddie
2011-06-10 6:58 ` Keir Fraser [this message]
2011-06-10 7:33 ` Keir Fraser
2011-06-10 8:05 ` Dong, Eddie
2011-06-10 7:30 ` Bug in smpboot.c? Keir Fraser
2011-06-10 11:31 ` John McDermott CIV
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CA177F36.1C036%keir.xen@gmail.com \
--to=keir.xen@gmail.com \
--cc=eddie.dong@intel.com \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xensource.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).