[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrXv2=JUJvcx0_wmd8bQQ8UUAOyhX+_LTKch8RaJFspPcw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 11:16:11 -0800
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>
Cc: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
xen-devel <xen-devel@...ts.xen.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen/x86: Adjust stack pointer in xen_sysexit
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Andrew Cooper
<andrew.cooper3@...rix.com> wrote:
> On 17/11/15 18:49, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Nov 17, 2015 6:40 AM, "Boris Ostrovsky" <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/16/2015 04:55 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>>> On 11/16/15 12:22, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>>>>> Huh, so what's wrong with a jump:
>>>>>
>>>>> jmp 1f
>>>>> swapgs
>>>>> 1:
>>>>>
>>>> What is the point of that jump?
>>>>
>>>>>> If it would make you feel better, it could be X86_BUG_XENPV :-p
>>>>> That doesn't matter - I just don't want to open the flood gates on
>>>>> pseudo feature bits.
>>>>>
>>>>> hpa, what do you think?
>>>> Pseudo feature bits are fine, we already have plenty of them. They make
>>>> sense as they let us reuse a lot of infrastructure.
>>>
>>>
>>> So how about something like this? And then I think we can remove usergs_sysret32 and irq_enable_sysexit pv ops completely as noone will use them (lguest doesn't set them)
>>>
>> Looks good to me. Does Xen have any sysexit/sysret32 equivalent to
>> return to 32-bit user mode? If so, it could be worth trying to wire
>> it up by patching the jz instead of the test instruction.
>
> From the guests point of view, there is only hypercall_iret.
Doesn't hypercall_iret have flags that ask for different behavior,
though? (VG_syscall or whatever for the 64-bit case?)
>
>>
>> Also, I'd prefer X86_FEATURE_XENPV. IMO "PV" means too many things to
>> too many people.
>
> I agree - PV on its own is too generic.
>
> An alternative might be X86_FEATURE_XEN_PV_GUEST which is very clear an
> unambiguous, although rather longer.
Works for me, too, although seeing "xen_pv_host" in the Linux cpu
features would be very strange indeed :)
--Andy
--
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