On Friday, July 17, 2015 at 12:25:11 AM UTC-7, Valentine Sinitsyn wrote: > On 17.07.2015 12:06, Jan Kiszka wrote: > > On 2015-07-17 09:00, Valentine Sinitsyn wrote: > >> Hi everybody, > >> > >> On 17.07.2015 11:29, Jan Kiszka wrote: > >>> The answer to this is what is listed under that TODO item: adding a > >>> timeout to the communication region protocol and fail a cell that does > >>> not react in time. The only challenge of this is that the hypervisor has > >>> no notion of time so far. > >> I also have a few places that are crying for timeout infrastructure in > >> amd_iommu code (otherwise we leave the hypervisor potentially vulnerable > >> to a hard lockup), so patches are very welcome. :) > > > > OK, good to know. Would be polling for a timeout sufficient in your use > > case? Then we could start with a simpler infrastructure. > I think so. In fact, I just thought that amd_iommu is naturally > x86-specific, so if I could rely on something like PM Timer/HPET inside > the hypervisor, it would already be enough. > > Valentine
That's interesting. So we kidnap one of those timers to the hypervisor only (since the cells are using APIC timers and are good with them) and gain timers on that level, right? Leaving the root cell out of the way on the watchdog task looks safer for me as well (reading through the thread). We could have policies to reload cells even without participation of the root one. Has anyone experimented with those different clocks on x86 already? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jailhouse" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
