[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090315170945.08344b86@infradead.org>
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2009 17:09:45 -0700
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...ell.com>,
Xen-devel <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@...rix.com>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 10/24] xen: mask XSAVE from cpuid
On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 17:05:26 -0700
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org> wrote:
> Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > This is indicative of something that might be a huge bug in Xen:
> > Xen should never ever pass through CPUID bits it does not know.
> > If Xen does not honor that, there is a fundamental and eternally
> > recurring problem.... every time something new gets introduced Xen
> > likely breaks.
>
> Yes, I'd agree; Xen should whitelist cpu capabilities rather than
> blacklist them. Jan expressed the opposite opinion (on the grounds
> that it precludes using features which don't require special OS or
> hypervisor support without Xen modifications).
Well.. pretty much all new instructions need Xen modifications due to
the need to be emulate to deal with traps/vmexits/etc right?
So I don't quite see many cpuid bits that would NOT involve some Xen
modification or another ;)
--
Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre
For development, discussion and tips for power savings,
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
--
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