[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46EED250.5080207@goop.org>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 12:15:28 -0700
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: "Nakajima, Jun" <jun.nakajima@...el.com>
CC: Anthony Liguori <aliguori@...ibm.com>,
kvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, Avi Kivity <avi@...ranet.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH] Refactor hypercall infrastructure
Nakajima, Jun wrote:
> Using CPUID.0x4000000N (N > 2) does not prevent Xen from doing that,
> either. If you use 0x40001000, 1) you need to say the leaves from
> 0x40000000 through 0x40001000 are all valid, OR 2) you create/fork a
> new/odd leaf (with 0x1000 offset) repeating the detection redundantly.
>
I don't see a particular problem with that. If the whole 0x4xxxxxxx
range is reserved for hypervisor use, and existing hypervisors are
already using 0x400000xx in hypervisor-specific ways, then it makes
sense to start the generic stuff at 0x40001xxx (or some other offset).
But without a few more implementations of the "generic" interface its
all a bit moot (ie, where's your code? ;).
> Again, 0x40000000 is not Xen specific. If the leaf 0x40000000 is used
> for any guest to detect any hypervisor, that would be compelling
> benefit. For future Xen-specific features, it's safe for Xen to use
> other bigger leaves (like 0x40001000) because the guest starts looking
> at them after detection of Xen.
>
> Likewise if KVM paravirtualization interface (as kind of "open source
> paravirtualization interface") is detected in the generic areas (not in
> vender-specific), any guest can check the features available without
> knowing which hypervisor uses which CPUID for that.
>
This just seems a bit grotty. You're relying on the fact that you can
overlay Xen's current use of 0x4000000x for the generic interface by
freezing Xen's current use of 40000000-2. 0x40000000 becomes a more or
less useless hypervisor-identification signature (useless because you
need to assume that leaves 4000000x, x>2 implement the generic interface
anyway, where x=1,2 are reserved for Xen (=hypervisor-specific) uses).
In other words, what mechanism can a guest use to explicitly identify
the existence of the generic interface? There needs to be a signature
for that somewhere.
J
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists