>>> On 08.10.18 at 09:49, wrote:
>> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:jbeul...@suse.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 2, 2018 5:33 PM
>>
>> >>> On 29.09.18 at 11:22, wrote:
>> > --- a/xen/xsm/dummy.c
>> > +++ b/xen/xsm/dummy.c
>> > @@ -11,7 +11,6 @@
>> > */
>> >
>> > #define XSM_NO_WRAPPERS
>> >
Thanks Jan.
> -Original Message-
> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:jbeul...@suse.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 2, 2018 5:33 PM
> To: Xin Li
> Cc: Andrew Cooper ; Ming Lu
> ; Sergey Dyasli ; Wei Liu
> ; Xin Li (Talons) ; George Dunlap
> ; Stefano Stabellini ; xen-
> de...@lists.xen.org; Konrad
>>> On 29.09.18 at 11:22, wrote:
> --- a/xen/include/xsm/dummy.h
> +++ b/xen/include/xsm/dummy.h
> @@ -48,7 +48,12 @@ void __xsm_action_mismatch_detected(void);
> * There is no xsm_default_t argument available, so the value from the
> assertion
> * is used to initialize the variable.
> */
On 09/28/2018 04:18 AM, Xin Li wrote:
When SILO is enabled, there would be no page-sharing or event notifications
between unprivileged VMs (no grant tables or event channels).
Signed-off-by: Xin Li
v3: make copies of dummy functions to avoid indirect call.
This still makes indirect calls.
On 07/24/2018 04:18 AM, Xin Li (Talons) wrote:
Hi Daniel,
I think the main questions here are:
1. Do we need a separated KConfig option for SILO
Yes; I made comments on your patch doing so
2. Can we use indirect call like "dummy_xsm_ops.grant_copy"
Any suggestion?
Hi Daniel,
I think the main questions here are:
1. Do we need a separated KConfig option for SILO
2. Can we use indirect call like "dummy_xsm_ops.grant_copy"
Any suggestion?
Best regards
Xin(Talons) Li
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Jan Beulich
>>> On 23.07.18 at 12:45, wrote:
> I think the main questions here are:
> 1. Do we need a separated KConfig option for SILO
> 2. Can we use indirect call like "dummy_xsm_ops.grant_copy"
> Any suggestion?
I'm afraid the addressing of your mail is misleading: I've voiced my
Hi
I think the main questions here are:
1. Do we need a separated KConfig option for SILO
2. Can we use indirect call like "dummy_xsm_ops.grant_copy"
Any suggestion?
Best regards
Xin(Talons) Li
> -Original Message-
> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:jbeul...@suse.com]
> Sent:
> -Original Message-
> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:jbeul...@suse.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 3, 2018 6:16 PM
> To: Xin Li (Talons) ; Xin Li
> Cc: Andrew Cooper ; George Dunlap
> ; Ming Lu ; Sergey Dyasli
> ; Wei Liu ; Stefano Stabellini
> ; xen-de...@lists.xen.org; Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
> ;
>>> On 03.07.18 at 11:07, wrote:
>> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:jbeul...@suse.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 3, 2018 3:34 PM
>> >>> On 03.07.18 at 03:26, wrote:
>> > +return (is_control_domain(cur_dom) || is_control_domain(ldom) ||
>> > +is_control_domain(rdom) || ldom == rdom); }
>>
Hello Jan,
> -Original Message-
> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:jbeul...@suse.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 3, 2018 3:34 PM
> To: Xin Li ; Daniel de Graaf
> Cc: Andrew Cooper ; Ming Lu
> ; Sergey Dyasli ; Wei Liu
> ; Xin Li (Talons) ; George Dunlap
> ; Stefano Stabellini ; xen-
>
>>> On 03.07.18 at 03:26, wrote:
> v2
> To further discuss:
> 1) is the new Kconfig option XSM_SILO necessary?
> we can handle SILO similar as DUMMY, using exsting CONFIG_XSM.
>
> 2) explain "unmediated communication channel"
I'm confused: As said in the reply to patch 1, this section is
>>> On 02.07.18 at 11:22, wrote:
>> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:jbeul...@suse.com]
>> Sent: Monday, July 2, 2018 3:29 PM
>> >>> On 02.07.18 at 08:57, wrote:
>> >> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:jbeul...@suse.com]
>> >> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2018 6:36 PM
>> >> >>> On 29.06.18 at 11:28, wrote:
>> >> >
Hello Jan,
> -Original Message-
> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:jbeul...@suse.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 2, 2018 3:29 PM
> To: Xin Li (Talons) ; Xin Li
> Cc: Andrew Cooper ; George Dunlap
> ; Ming Lu ; Sergey Dyasli
> ; Wei Liu ; Stefano Stabellini
> ; xen-de...@lists.xen.org; Konrad
>>> On 02.07.18 at 08:57, wrote:
>> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:jbeul...@suse.com]
>> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2018 6:36 PM
>> >>> On 29.06.18 at 11:28, wrote:
>> > When SILO is enabled, there would be no page-sharing between
>> > unprivileged VMs (no grant tables or event channels).
>>
>> What is
gt; Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/2] xen/xsm: Add new SILO mode for XSM
>
> Hello,
>
> On 29/06/18 10:28, Xin Li wrote:
> > diff --git a/xen/xsm/silo.c b/xen/xsm/silo.c new file mode 100644
> > index 00..cac22432d
Done.
Best regards
Xin(Talons) Li
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrew Cooper
> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2018 5:52 PM
> To: Xin Li ; xen-de...@lists.xen.org
> Cc: Xin Li (Talons) ; Daniel De Graaf
> ; George Dunlap ; Jan
> Beulich ; Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
> ; Stefano Stabellini ; Tim
>
Hello Jan,
> -Original Message-
> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:jbeul...@suse.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2018 6:36 PM
> To: Andrew Cooper ; Xin Li
>
> Cc: Ming Lu ; Sergey Dyasli ;
> Wei Liu ; Xin Li (Talons) ; George
> Dunlap ; Stefano Stabellini
> ; xen-de...@lists.xen.org; Konrad
Hello,
On 29/06/18 10:28, Xin Li wrote:
diff --git a/xen/xsm/silo.c b/xen/xsm/silo.c
new file mode 100644
index 00..cac22432da
--- /dev/null
+++ b/xen/xsm/silo.c
@@ -0,0 +1,106 @@
+/**
+ * xsm/silo.c
+ *
+ *
>>> On 29.06.18 at 11:28, wrote:
> When SILO is enabled, there would be no page-sharing between
> unprivileged VMs (no grant tables or event channels).
What is the relation between page sharing and event channels?
> --- a/xen/common/Kconfig
> +++ b/xen/common/Kconfig
> @@ -143,6 +143,17 @@
On 29/06/18 10:28, Xin Li wrote:
> +void __init silo_init(void)
> +{
> +printk("Initialising XSM SILO mode");
You need a newline at the end of printk here.
Otherwise, everything else looks in order.
~Andrew
___
Xen-devel mailing list
21 matches
Mail list logo
