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] mce_wrmsr() and (at least) HVM guests

To: "Yunhong Jiang" <yunhong.jiang@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] mce_wrmsr() and (at least) HVM guests
From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 2010年1月04日 09:08:08 +0000
Cc: "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Liping Ke <liping.ke@xxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: 2010年1月04日 01:08:10 -0800
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <C8EDE645B81E5141A8C6B2F73FD926511384253614@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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: <4B1509BD0200007800022D3B@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4B30D17B02000078000272CF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <C8EDE645B81E5141A8C6B2F73FD9265107A292FC7E@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4B41B03F020000780002809D@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <C8EDE645B81E5141A8C6B2F73FD926511384253614@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> "Jiang, Yunhong" <yunhong.jiang@xxxxxxxxx> 04.01.10 09:31 >>>
>>>And also another potential issue raised out. For example, guest has
>>>clear one bit in MCn_CTL while physically it is enabled. If a error
>>>corresponding to this bit really happen, at least we should not inject
>>>a vMCE to guest. We will either kill the guest, or let the guest
>>>continues, depends on the error type .
>>
>>Yes, this would make sense, albeit it seems overkill to me - there
>>shouldn't really be disagreement in how specific models get handled.
>>Instead, perhaps an unprivileged guest should be permitted to write
>>zero bits wherever the underlying real register has them clear (as
>>read back from hardware, not as written by Xen or dom0).
>
>What do you mean of "write zero bits wherever the underlying real
>register has them clear"?
Writing e.g. all 1s into any of these registers doesn't mean you'd read
back all 1s. Hence, writing zero into read-only (always zero) bits should
be permitted as well as writing zero into bits that dom0 cleared
explicitly.
Jan
_______________________________________________
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] mce_wrmsr() and (at least) HVM guests , Jiang, Yunhong
Next by Date: [Xen-devel] [Patch] correct domctl.h , Juergen Gross
Previous by Thread: RE: [Xen-devel] mce_wrmsr() and (at least) HVM guests , Jiang, Yunhong
Next by Thread: RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Correct handling node with CPU populated but no memory populated , Jiang, Yunhong
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) /