Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 00/11] [v2] misc changes for kexec in pv-

To:	Keir Fraser <keir.xen@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject:	Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 00/11] [v2] misc changes for kexec in pv-on-hvm guests
From:	Olaf Hering <olaf@xxxxxxxxx>
Date:	Mon, 1 Aug 2011 15:00:50 +0200
Cc:	xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivery-date:	Mon, 01 Aug 2011 06:06:11 -0700
Dkim-signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1312203696; l=735; s=domk; d=aepfle.de; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:Subject:Cc:To:From: Date:X-RZG-CLASS-ID:X-RZG-AUTH; bh=conRQeBZGYXS+6mdih31EGuKWQA=; b=nIawkAVcheLbZEUmevsd9w7WtirUcfzCvbcgh31iMOzL104H9ctlu2DV0l+AF5e3Hkv eV8kqgN24pH5PyeKF93wAftRFfskPoIfj5S1qHOUhXE/6p0qK4SqkuToiA+YkcpKymgrm OYXd6yTx2xaHl675Rpuovcw7zC7Gtj5XTnQ=
Envelope-to:	www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to:	<CA57261F.1EB25%keir.xen@xxxxxxxxx>
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:	<20110728132300.248098023@xxxxxxxxx> <CA57261F.1EB25%keir.xen@xxxxxxxxx>
Sender:	xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent:	Mutt/1.5.21.rev5535 (2011-07-01)

On Thu, Jul 28, Keir Fraser wrote:

> On 28/07/2011 14:23, "Olaf Hering" <olaf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > A fixed kexec-tools-2.0.2 package is required:
> > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/kexec/2011-May/005026.html
> > However, as I just found out, xenfs unconditionally adds
> > /proc/xen/capabilities
> > even for hvm guest.
> > 
> > So: how is a hvm guest supposed to be detected in 3.0?
> 
> Rip the moving parts from tools/misc/xen-detect.c. It does rely on hooking
> SIGILL if you want to safely probe for being a PV guest (uses a
> paravirtualised CPUID instruction that is normally an illegal instruction).

Thanks, I will work on a better kexec-tools patch to distinguish dom0
from a PVonHVM guest.

Olaf

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 00/11] [v2] misc changes for kexec in pv-on-hvm g