WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
Xen

xen-devel

[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Xen-devel] Weekly VMX status report. Xen: #18846 & Xen0: #749

To: Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Weekly VMX status report. Xen: #18846 & Xen0: #749
From: Gianluca Guida <gianluca.guida@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 2008年12月12日 23:30:37 +0000
Cc: "Li, Haicheng" <haicheng.li@xxxxxxxxx>, "'xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Li, Xin" <xin.li@xxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: 2008年12月12日 15:36:12 -0800
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <C568A2CA.20317%keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <C568A2CA.20317%keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla-Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (X11/20080110)
Keir Fraser wrote:
Is there any guest that actually cares about having EFER_NX really cleared?
Presumably the only way of detecting this would be reserved-bit page faults,
which no OS is likely to want to deliberately cause?
Yes, no OS we've actually experienced at the moment rely on reserved bit faults (with the most notable exception of Tim's fast path for MMIO and non present pages in Xen's shadow entries). I am sure about this for a very simple reason: -- some kind of secret I would like to share with you and xen-devel -- shadow code doesn't check at all for reserved bits when propagating changes from guest to shadows, so we never propagate reserved bit faults to guests. [working on this]
There's been some talk of NX'ing up Xen's data areas. In that case we
*would* need NX enabled always in host mode. Would it actually be worth
enabling/disabling on vmexit/vmentry?
SVM actually does automatically save/restore EFER on vmentry/vmexit. Could
we use VMX's MSR load/save support for the same effect? Would it be slow, or
interact badly with the existing support for switching EFER.LME?
AFAIK, this should be slow.
Thanks,
Gianluca
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Previous by Date: Re: [Xen-devel] Weekly VMX status report. Xen: #18846 & Xen0: #749 , Keir Fraser
Next by Date: solved - RE: [Xen-devel] can't create any more pv-on-hvm domains... , James Harper
Previous by Thread: Re: [Xen-devel] Weekly VMX status report. Xen: #18846 & Xen0: #749 , Keir Fraser
Next by Thread: Re: [Xen-devel] Weekly VMX status report. Xen: #18846 & Xen0: #749 , Keir Fraser
Indexes: [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]

Copyright ©, Citrix Systems Inc. All rights reserved. Legal and Privacy
Citrix This site is hosted by Citrix

AltStyle によって変換されたページ (->オリジナル) /