At 08:21 + on 18 Dec (1450426907), Han, Huaitong wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-12-16 at 15:36 +, George Dunlap wrote:
> > With your current series, guest_walk_tables() already checks for
> > pkeys
> > being enabled in the guest before checking for them in the
> > pagetables.
> > For shadow mode, th
On 18/12/15 08:21, Han, Huaitong wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-12-16 at 15:36 +, George Dunlap wrote:
>> [Adding Tim, the previous mm maintainer]
>>
>> On 11/12/15 09:16, Wu, Feng wrote:
> +{
> +void *xsave_addr;
> +unsigned int pkru = 0;
> +bool_t pkru_ad, pkru_wd;
> +
On Wed, 2015-12-16 at 15:36 +, George Dunlap wrote:
> [Adding Tim, the previous mm maintainer]
>
> On 11/12/15 09:16, Wu, Feng wrote:
> > > > +{
> > > > +void *xsave_addr;
> > > > +unsigned int pkru = 0;
> > > > +bool_t pkru_ad, pkru_wd;
> > > > +
> > > > +bool_t uf = !!(pfec &
>>> On 17.12.15 at 10:18, wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-12-16 at 02:12 -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> > > > On 16.12.15 at 10:03, wrote:
>> > On Wed, 2015-12-16 at 01:32 -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> > > Depending on how frequently this might get called, the allocation
>> > > overhead may not be tolerable.
On Wed, 2015-12-16 at 02:12 -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > On 16.12.15 at 10:03, wrote:
> > On Wed, 2015-12-16 at 01:32 -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > > > On 16.12.15 at 09:16, wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2015-12-15 at 02:02 -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > > Well, I wouldn't want you to introd
At 16:34 + on 16 Dec (1450283699), Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 16/12/15 16:28, Tim Deegan wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > At 15:36 + on 16 Dec (1450280191), George Dunlap wrote:
> >> (hvm_fetch_from_guest_virt() seems to only set PFEC_insn_fetch if nx or
> >> smep are enabled in the guest. This seems
At 16:50 + on 16 Dec (1450284615), George Dunlap wrote:
> On 16/12/15 16:28, Tim Deegan wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > At 15:36 + on 16 Dec (1450280191), George Dunlap wrote:
> >> (hvm_fetch_from_guest_virt() seems to only set PFEC_insn_fetch if nx or
> >> smep are enabled in the guest. This seem
On 16/12/15 16:28, Tim Deegan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> At 15:36 + on 16 Dec (1450280191), George Dunlap wrote:
>> (hvm_fetch_from_guest_virt() seems to only set PFEC_insn_fetch if nx or
>> smep are enabled in the guest. This seems inconsistent to me with the
>> treatment of PFEC_reserved_bit: it seem
On 16/12/15 16:28, Tim Deegan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> At 15:36 + on 16 Dec (1450280191), George Dunlap wrote:
>> (hvm_fetch_from_guest_virt() seems to only set PFEC_insn_fetch if nx or
>> smep are enabled in the guest. This seems inconsistent to me with the
>> treatment of PFEC_reserved_bit: it seems
Hi,
At 15:36 + on 16 Dec (1450280191), George Dunlap wrote:
> (hvm_fetch_from_guest_virt() seems to only set PFEC_insn_fetch if nx or
> smep are enabled in the guest. This seems inconsistent to me with the
> treatment of PFEC_reserved_bit: it seems like
> hvm_fetch_from_guest_virt() should al
[Adding Tim, the previous mm maintainer]
On 11/12/15 09:16, Wu, Feng wrote:
>>> +{
>>> +void *xsave_addr;
>>> +unsigned int pkru = 0;
>>> +bool_t pkru_ad, pkru_wd;
>>> +
>>> +bool_t uf = !!(pfec & PFEC_user_mode);
>>> +bool_t wf = !!(pfec & PFEC_write_access);
>>> +bool_t f
>>> On 16.12.15 at 10:03, wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-12-16 at 01:32 -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> > > > On 16.12.15 at 09:16, wrote:
>> > On Tue, 2015-12-15 at 02:02 -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> > > Well, I wouldn't want you to introduce a brand new function, but
>> > > instead just factor out the nece
On Wed, 2015-12-16 at 01:32 -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > On 16.12.15 at 09:16, wrote:
> > On Tue, 2015-12-15 at 02:02 -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > Well, I wouldn't want you to introduce a brand new function, but
> > > instead just factor out the necessary piece from xsave() (making
> > > t
>>> On 16.12.15 at 09:16, wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-12-15 at 02:02 -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> Well, I wouldn't want you to introduce a brand new function, but
>> instead just factor out the necessary piece from xsave() (making
>> the new one take a struct xsave_struct * instead of a struct vcpu *,
>
On Tue, 2015-12-15 at 02:02 -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > On 15.12.15 at 09:14, wrote:
> > On Fri, 2015-12-11 at 02:26 -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > > > On 10.12.15 at 19:19, wrote:
> > > > On 07/12/15 09:16, Huaitong Han wrote:
> > > > > +if ( likely(!pte_pkeys) )
> > > > > +
>>> On 15.12.15 at 09:14, wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-12-11 at 02:26 -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> > > > On 10.12.15 at 19:19, wrote:
>> > On 07/12/15 09:16, Huaitong Han wrote:
>> > > +if ( likely(!pte_pkeys) )
>> > > +return 0;
>> > > +
>> > > +/* Update vcpu xsave area */
>> > > +
On Fri, 2015-12-11 at 02:26 -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > On 10.12.15 at 19:19, wrote:
> > On 07/12/15 09:16, Huaitong Han wrote:
> > > +if ( likely(!pte_pkeys) )
> > > +return 0;
> > > +
> > > +/* Update vcpu xsave area */
> > > +fpu_xsave(vcpu);
> >
> > Is there a reason
>>> On 11.12.15 at 10:23, wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-12-10 at 18:19 +, George Dunlap wrote:
>> On 07/12/15 09:16, Huaitong Han wrote:
>> > +if ( likely(!pte_pkeys) )
>> > +return 0;
>> > +
>> > +/* Update vcpu xsave area */
>> > +fpu_xsave(vcpu);
>>
>> Is there a reason you're
On Thu, 2015-12-10 at 18:19 +, George Dunlap wrote:
> On 07/12/15 09:16, Huaitong Han wrote:
> > +{
> > +void *xsave_addr;
> > +unsigned int pkru = 0;
> > +bool_t pkru_ad, pkru_wd;
> > +
> > +bool_t uf = !!(pfec & PFEC_user_mode);
> > +bool_t wf = !!(pfec & PFEC_write_access
>>> On 10.12.15 at 19:19, wrote:
> On 07/12/15 09:16, Huaitong Han wrote:
>> +if ( likely(!pte_pkeys) )
>> +return 0;
>> +
>> +/* Update vcpu xsave area */
>> +fpu_xsave(vcpu);
>
> Is there a reason you're calling fpu_xsave() directly here, rather than
> just calling vcpu_save
>>> On 11.12.15 at 10:16, wrote:
>> From: xen-devel-boun...@lists.xen.org [mailto:xen-devel-
>> boun...@lists.xen.org] On Behalf Of George Dunlap
>> Sent: Friday, December 11, 2015 2:20 AM
>> On 07/12/15 09:16, Huaitong Han wrote:
>> > This patch adds pkeys support for guest_walk_tables.
>> >
>> >
; Eddie ; Tian, Kevin ;
> george.dun...@eu.citrix.com; ian.jack...@eu.citrix.com;
> stefano.stabell...@eu.citrix.com; ian.campb...@citrix.com;
> wei.l...@citrix.com;
> k...@xen.org
> Cc: xen-devel@lists.xen.org
> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [V3 PATCH 7/9] x86/hvm: pkeys, add pkeys sup
On 11/12/2015 07:18, Han, Huaitong wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-12-10 at 18:59 +, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 07/12/15 09:16, Huaitong Han wrote:
>>> +
>>> +/* PKRU dom0 is always zero */
>>> +if ( likely(!pte_pkeys) )
>>> +return 0;
>> This is not an architectural restriction (as far a
On Thu, 2015-12-10 at 18:59 +, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 07/12/15 09:16, Huaitong Han wrote:
> > +
> > +/* PKRU dom0 is always zero */
> > +if ( likely(!pte_pkeys) )
> > +return 0;
>
> This is not an architectural restriction (as far as I can tell). Xen
> must never make assum
On 07/12/15 09:16, Huaitong Han wrote:
> +
> +/* PKRU dom0 is always zero */
> +if ( likely(!pte_pkeys) )
> +return 0;
This is not an architectural restriction (as far as I can tell). Xen
must never make assumptions about how a guest chooses to use a feature.
~Andrew
___
On 07/12/15 09:16, Huaitong Han wrote:
> This patch adds pkeys support for guest_walk_tables.
>
> Signed-off-by: Huaitong Han
> ---
> xen/arch/x86/i387.c | 2 +-
> xen/arch/x86/mm/guest_walk.c | 73
> +++
> xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/hvm.h | 2 +
This patch adds pkeys support for guest_walk_tables.
Signed-off-by: Huaitong Han
---
xen/arch/x86/i387.c | 2 +-
xen/arch/x86/mm/guest_walk.c | 73 +++
xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/hvm.h | 2 ++
xen/include/asm-x86/i387.h| 1 +
4 files changed
27 matches
Mail list logo
