On 4/20/2017 6:23 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 20/04/17 11:10, Yu Zhang wrote:
On 4/20/2017 6:01 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 20.04.17 at 11:53, wrote:
On 4/20/2017 5:47 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 20.04.17 at 09:15, wrote:
And back to the schedule of this feature, are you working on it?
Or a
On 20/04/17 11:10, Yu Zhang wrote:
>
>
> On 4/20/2017 6:01 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 20.04.17 at 11:53, wrote:
>>> On 4/20/2017 5:47 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 20.04.17 at 09:15, wrote:
> And back to the schedule of this feature, are you working on it?
> Or any
> specific
On 4/20/2017 6:01 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 20.04.17 at 11:53, wrote:
On 4/20/2017 5:47 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 20.04.17 at 09:15, wrote:
And back to the schedule of this feature, are you working on it? Or any
specific plan?
Well, the HVM side is basically ready (as said, the single hun
>>> On 20.04.17 at 11:53, wrote:
> On 4/20/2017 5:47 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 20.04.17 at 09:15, wrote:
>>> And back to the schedule of this feature, are you working on it? Or any
>>> specific plan?
>> Well, the HVM side is basically ready (as said, the single hunk needed
>> to support UMI
On 4/20/2017 5:47 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 20.04.17 at 09:15, wrote:
And back to the schedule of this feature, are you working on it? Or any
specific plan?
Well, the HVM side is basically ready (as said, the single hunk needed
to support UMIP when hardware supports it could be easily split
>>> On 20.04.17 at 09:15, wrote:
> And back to the schedule of this feature, are you working on it? Or any
> specific plan?
Well, the HVM side is basically ready (as said, the single hunk needed
to support UMIP when hardware supports it could be easily split off of
my emulation patch). For the P
On 4/19/2017 10:09 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 19/04/17 15:07, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 19.04.17 at 15:58, wrote:
On 19/04/17 14:50, Yu Zhang wrote:
On 4/19/2017 9:34 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 19.04.17 at 13:44, wrote:
On 4/19/2017 7:19 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 19.04.17 at 11:48, wrote:
On 19/04/17 15:27, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 19.04.17 at 16:17, wrote:
>> On 19/04/17 15:06, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 19.04.17 at 15:49, wrote:
If a PV kernel is aware of UMIP and turns UMIP on, #GPs from userspace
should be bounced to the kernel, and #GPs from kernel space (as it
>>> On 19.04.17 at 16:17, wrote:
> On 19/04/17 15:06, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 19.04.17 at 15:49, wrote:
>>> If a PV kernel is aware of UMIP and turns UMIP on, #GPs from userspace
>>> should be bounced to the kernel, and #GPs from kernel space (as it is
>>> ring-deprivileged) must be emulated
On 19/04/17 15:06, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 19.04.17 at 15:49, wrote:
>> If a PV kernel is aware of UMIP and turns UMIP on, #GPs from userspace
>> should be bounced to the kernel, and #GPs from kernel space (as it is
>> ring-deprivileged) must be emulated and execute successfully.
>>
>> If Xen i
On 19/04/17 15:07, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 19.04.17 at 15:58, wrote:
>> On 19/04/17 14:50, Yu Zhang wrote:
>>>
>>> On 4/19/2017 9:34 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 19.04.17 at 13:44, wrote:
> On 4/19/2017 7:19 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 19.04.17 at 11:48, wrote:
>>> Does h
>>> On 19.04.17 at 15:58, wrote:
> On 19/04/17 14:50, Yu Zhang wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 4/19/2017 9:34 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 19.04.17 at 13:44, wrote:
On 4/19/2017 7:19 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 19.04.17 at 11:48, wrote:
>> Does hypervisor need to differentiate dom0 kernel
>>> On 19.04.17 at 15:49, wrote:
> If a PV kernel is aware of UMIP and turns UMIP on, #GPs from userspace
> should be bounced to the kernel, and #GPs from kernel space (as it is
> ring-deprivileged) must be emulated and execute successfully.
>
> If Xen is using UMIP to protect itself, it needs to
On 19/04/17 14:50, Yu Zhang wrote:
>
>
> On 4/19/2017 9:34 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 19.04.17 at 13:44, wrote:
>>> On 4/19/2017 7:19 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 19.04.17 at 11:48, wrote:
> Does hypervisor need to differentiate dom0 kernel and its
> user space?
If we want
On 4/19/2017 9:34 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 19.04.17 at 13:44, wrote:
On 4/19/2017 7:19 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 19.04.17 at 11:48, wrote:
Does hypervisor need to differentiate dom0 kernel and its
user space?
If we want to para-virtualize the feature, then yes. Otherwise
we can't assume
On 19/04/17 14:34, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 19.04.17 at 13:44, wrote:
>> On 4/19/2017 7:19 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 19.04.17 at 11:48, wrote:
Does hypervisor need to differentiate dom0 kernel and its
user space?
>>> If we want to para-virtualize the feature, then yes. Otherwis
>>> On 19.04.17 at 13:44, wrote:
> On 4/19/2017 7:19 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 19.04.17 at 11:48, wrote:
>>> Does hypervisor need to differentiate dom0 kernel and its
>>> user space?
>> If we want to para-virtualize the feature, then yes. Otherwise
>> we can't assume the guest kernel would
On 4/19/2017 7:19 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 19.04.17 at 11:48, wrote:
On 4/19/2017 5:18 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 19.04.17 at 10:48, wrote:
I saw that commit 8c14e5f provides emulations for UMIP affected
instructions. But realized that xen does not have logic to expose UMIP
feature to
>>> On 19.04.17 at 11:48, wrote:
> On 4/19/2017 5:18 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 19.04.17 at 10:48, wrote:
>>> I saw that commit 8c14e5f provides emulations for UMIP affected
>>> instructions. But realized that xen does not have logic to expose UMIP
>>> feature to guests - you have sent o
On 4/19/2017 5:59 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 19/04/17 10:48, Yu Zhang wrote:
On 4/19/2017 5:18 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 19.04.17 at 10:48, wrote:
I saw that commit 8c14e5f provides emulations for UMIP affected
instructions. But realized that xen does not have logic to expose UMIP
fe
On 19/04/17 10:48, Yu Zhang wrote:
>
>
> On 4/19/2017 5:18 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 19.04.17 at 10:48, wrote:
>>> I saw that commit 8c14e5f provides emulations for UMIP affected
>>> instructions. But realized that xen does not have logic to expose UMIP
>>> feature to guests - you have s
On 4/19/2017 5:18 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 19.04.17 at 10:48, wrote:
I saw that commit 8c14e5f provides emulations for UMIP affected
instructions. But realized that xen does not have logic to expose UMIP
feature to guests - you have sent out one in
https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/h
>>> On 19.04.17 at 10:48, wrote:
>I saw that commit 8c14e5f provides emulations for UMIP affected
> instructions. But realized that xen does not have logic to expose UMIP
> feature to guests - you have sent out one in
> https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2016-12/msg00552.h
23 matches
Mail list logo
