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 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 01/18] Nested Virtualization: tools

To: Christoph Egger <Christoph.Egger@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 01/18] Nested Virtualization: tools
From: Tim Deegan <Tim.Deegan@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 11:43:43 +0100
Cc: "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 03:44:33 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20100416103652.GB31304@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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: <201004151422.36660.Christoph.Egger@xxxxxxx> <20100416103652.GB31304@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
At 11:36 +0100 on 16 Apr (1271417812), Tim Deegan wrote:
> At 13:22 +0100 on 15 Apr (1271337756), Christoph Egger wrote:
> > diff -r 2d96bc60035c -r 0e6fd40c25bf xen/include/public/domctl.h
> > --- a/xen/include/public/domctl.h
> > +++ b/xen/include/public/domctl.h
> > @@ -60,10 +60,13 @@ struct xen_domctl_createdomain {
> >   /* Should domain memory integrity be verifed by tboot during Sx? */
> >  #define _XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_s3_integrity  2
> >  #define XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_s3_integrity   (1U<<_XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_s3_integrity)
> > -    uint32_t flags;
> >   /* Disable out-of-sync shadow page tables? */
> >  #define _XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_oos_off       3
> >  #define XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_oos_off        (1U<<_XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_oos_off)
> > + /* Enable nested HVM (only valid with XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_hvm_guest) */
> > +#define _XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_nestedhvm     4
> > +#define XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_nestedhvm      (1U<<_XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_nestedhvm)
> > +    uint32_t flags;
> >  };
> >  typedef struct xen_domctl_createdomain xen_domctl_createdomain_t;
> >  DEFINE_XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(xen_domctl_createdomain_t);
> 
> Does this need its own hyperacll flag?  Couldn't we just gate it on
> whether the cpuid policy allows SVM?

Actually, more generally:  Keir, can you give us an opinion on which
things like this belong in DOMCTL_CDF_ and which in HVM_PARAM_ (and
which in their own hypercalls or not at all?)

Tim.

-- 
Tim Deegan <Tim.Deegan@xxxxxxxxxx>
Principal Software Engineer, XenServer Engineering
Citrix Systems UK Ltd.  (Company #02937203, SL9 0BG)

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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>