Re: [Xen-devel] PVH backports to 4.9 and 4.8
On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 08:23:50AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 02.03.18 at 15:36, wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 07:31:43AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote: > >> >>> On 02.03.18 at 15:22, wrote: > >> > I'd be in favor of merging the 4.8.3pre-shim-comet and > >> > 4.10.0-shim-comet branches into staging-4.8 and staging-4.10 > >> > respectively (assuming that's suitable). Are there any other fixes to > >> > PVH / PVshim hosting that we'd need to backport as well? > >> > >> That depends on how well those branches have been maintained > >> wrt fixes posted / applied during the last couple of weeks. > >> > > > > I can cherry-pick relevant fixes to 4.10-comet and then merge 4.10-comet > > with 4.10 staging. > > Fine with me. > > > If that's agreed we can discuss on what criteria do patches get picked > > for backporting. > > Until we've shipped a stable version from those branches (to be honest > I'm not sure about doing this for 4.8 when we don#t mean to do it for > 4.9), We avoided 4.9 at the time due to the pressure of getting something out fast, I'm not sure if it would be very complicated to pick the 'type=pvh' 4.8 backports and apply them 4.9, I'm fairly sure the code base is not that different (and at most this is going to involve dropping patches from the 4.8 branch). Roger. ___ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] PVH backports to 4.9 and 4.8
>>> On 02.03.18 at 15:36, wrote: > On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 07:31:43AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote: >> >>> On 02.03.18 at 15:22, wrote: >> > I'd be in favor of merging the 4.8.3pre-shim-comet and >> > 4.10.0-shim-comet branches into staging-4.8 and staging-4.10 >> > respectively (assuming that's suitable). Are there any other fixes to >> > PVH / PVshim hosting that we'd need to backport as well? >> >> That depends on how well those branches have been maintained >> wrt fixes posted / applied during the last couple of weeks. >> > > I can cherry-pick relevant fixes to 4.10-comet and then merge 4.10-comet > with 4.10 staging. Fine with me. > If that's agreed we can discuss on what criteria do patches get picked > for backporting. Until we've shipped a stable version from those branches (to be honest I'm not sure about doing this for 4.8 when we don#t mean to do it for 4.9), I think this can be a little relaxed. Later the criteria should match that of other changes going into stable. Jan ___ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] PVH backports to 4.9 and 4.8
On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 07:31:43AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 02.03.18 at 15:22, wrote: > > I'd be in favor of merging the 4.8.3pre-shim-comet and > > 4.10.0-shim-comet branches into staging-4.8 and staging-4.10 > > respectively (assuming that's suitable). Are there any other fixes to > > PVH / PVshim hosting that we'd need to backport as well? > > That depends on how well those branches have been maintained > wrt fixes posted / applied during the last couple of weeks. > I can cherry-pick relevant fixes to 4.10-comet and then merge 4.10-comet with 4.10 staging. If that's agreed we can discuss on what criteria do patches get picked for backporting. Wei. > Jan > ___ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] PVH backports to 4.9 and 4.8
>>> On 02.03.18 at 15:22, wrote: > I'd be in favor of merging the 4.8.3pre-shim-comet and > 4.10.0-shim-comet branches into staging-4.8 and staging-4.10 > respectively (assuming that's suitable). Are there any other fixes to > PVH / PVshim hosting that we'd need to backport as well? That depends on how well those branches have been maintained wrt fixes posted / applied during the last couple of weeks. Jan ___ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] PVH backports to 4.9 and 4.8
On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 6:38 PM, Hans-Joachim Kliemeck wrote: > > George Dunlap: > > /On 01/23/2018 04:06 AM, Simon Gaiser wrote:/ > /> George Dunlap:/ > />> Part of our solution to XSA-254 SP3 (aka "Meltdown") is to backport/ > />> the PVH mode from 4.10 to 4.9 and 4.8. This will first allow people/ > />> able to run PVH kernels to switch their PV guests directly to PVH/ > />> guests; and second, eventually enable the backport of patches which/ > />> will enable transparent changing of PV guests into PVH guests./ > />>/ > />> All of the hypervisor support seems to have existed already in 4.8, so/ > />> the only backports involve toolstack patches./ > />>/ > />> I've put up two trees for a first-cut backport of the PVH/ > />> functionality, to 4.9 and 4.8 here:/ > />>/ > />> git://xenbits.xen.org/people/gdunlap/xen.git/ > />>/ > />> Branches out/pvh-backport/4.8/v1 and out/pvh-backport/4.9/v1/ > />>/ > />> Below are the patches backported from 4.10 to 4.9 (23 patches total):/ > /> [...]/ > />/ > /> So future 4.8 releases will include the backports, right? Asking because/ > /> the AFAICS the 4.8.3-pre-shim-comet branch include them but staging-4.8/ > /> does not./ > // > /Some of us have had informal conversations about backporting PVH and/ > /Comet host/toolstack patches to 4.8, and a number of us think it's a/ > /good idea, but we haven't had an official discussion with all the/ > /stakeholders yet. We'll come back to it once more of the fires have/ > /been put out./ > // > /Feel free to remind us in a month or so if you still haven't seen any/ > /patches in the stable-4.8 branch. :-)/ > > Ok, thank you for the quick reply. In Qubes we are using PVH with 4.8 > using the old device_model_version=none config option. And changing this > would be much easier before release (So the change should be in our rc > now). Anyway if it's not decided yet, we will have to guess what ends up > in future 4.8.z releases. > > > > Hi, > > is there an update for the backports for 4.8 and 4.9? Or is there some > documentation available to see which parts are missing on 4.9 vs 4.10 (or > 4.8 vs 4.10) to get PVH running (device_model_version=none, ...)? [CC'ing some more people] Have we come to any firm conclusion about backported PVH functionality for 4.8? I'd be in favor of merging the 4.8.3pre-shim-comet and 4.10.0-shim-comet branches into staging-4.8 and staging-4.10 respectively (assuming that's suitable). Are there any other fixes to PVH / PVshim hosting that we'd need to backport as well? -George ___ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] PVH backports to 4.9 and 4.8
> George Dunlap: >> /On 01/23/2018 04:06 AM, Simon Gaiser wrote:/ >> /> George Dunlap:/ >> />> Part of our solution to XSA-254 SP3 (aka "Meltdown") is to backport/ >> />> the PVH mode from 4.10 to 4.9 and 4.8. This will first allow people/ >> />> able to run PVH kernels to switch their PV guests directly to PVH/ >> />> guests; and second, eventually enable the backport of patches which/ >> />> will enable transparent changing of PV guests into PVH guests./ >> />>/ >> />> All of the hypervisor support seems to have existed already in 4.8, so/ >> />> the only backports involve toolstack patches./ >> />>/ >> />> I've put up two trees for a first-cut backport of the PVH/ >> />> functionality, to 4.9 and 4.8 here:/ >> />>/ >> />> git://xenbits.xen.org/people/gdunlap/xen.git/ >> />>/ >> />> Branches out/pvh-backport/4.8/v1 and out/pvh-backport/4.9/v1/ >> />>/ >> />> Below are the patches backported from 4.10 to 4.9 (23 patches total):/ >> /> [...]/ >> />/ >> /> So future 4.8 releases will include the backports, right? Asking because/ >> /> the AFAICS the 4.8.3-pre-shim-comet branch include them but staging-4.8/ >> /> does not./ >> // >> /Some of us have had informal conversations about backporting PVH and/ >> /Comet host/toolstack patches to 4.8, and a number of us think it's a/ >> /good idea, but we haven't had an official discussion with all the/ >> /stakeholders yet. We'll come back to it once more of the fires have/ >> /been put out./ >> // >> /Feel free to remind us in a month or so if you still haven't seen any/ >> /patches in the stable-4.8 branch. :-)/ > Ok, thank you for the quick reply. In Qubes we are using PVH with 4.8 > using the old device_model_version=none config option. And changing this > would be much easier before release (So the change should be in our rc > now). Anyway if it's not decided yet, we will have to guess what ends up > in future 4.8.z releases. > > Hi, is there an update for the backports for 4.8 and 4.9? Or is there some documentation available to see which parts are missing on 4.9 vs 4.10 (or 4.8 vs 4.10) to get PVH running (device_model_version=none, ...)? Best Regards Hajo ___ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] PVH backports to 4.9 and 4.8
George Dunlap: > On 01/23/2018 04:06 AM, Simon Gaiser wrote: >> George Dunlap: >>> Part of our solution to XSA-254 SP3 (aka "Meltdown") is to backport >>> the PVH mode from 4.10 to 4.9 and 4.8. This will first allow people >>> able to run PVH kernels to switch their PV guests directly to PVH >>> guests; and second, eventually enable the backport of patches which >>> will enable transparent changing of PV guests into PVH guests. >>> >>> All of the hypervisor support seems to have existed already in 4.8, so >>> the only backports involve toolstack patches. >>> >>> I've put up two trees for a first-cut backport of the PVH >>> functionality, to 4.9 and 4.8 here: >>> >>> git://xenbits.xen.org/people/gdunlap/xen.git >>> >>> Branches out/pvh-backport/4.8/v1 and out/pvh-backport/4.9/v1 >>> >>> Below are the patches backported from 4.10 to 4.9 (23 patches total): >> [...] >> >> So future 4.8 releases will include the backports, right? Asking because >> the AFAICS the 4.8.3-pre-shim-comet branch include them but staging-4.8 >> does not. > > Some of us have had informal conversations about backporting PVH and > Comet host/toolstack patches to 4.8, and a number of us think it's a > good idea, but we haven't had an official discussion with all the > stakeholders yet. We'll come back to it once more of the fires have > been put out. > > Feel free to remind us in a month or so if you still haven't seen any > patches in the stable-4.8 branch. :-) Ok, thank you for the quick reply. In Qubes we are using PVH with 4.8 using the old device_model_version=none config option. And changing this would be much easier before release (So the change should be in our rc now). Anyway if it's not decided yet, we will have to guess what ends up in future 4.8.z releases. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] PVH backports to 4.9 and 4.8
On 01/23/2018 04:06 AM, Simon Gaiser wrote: > George Dunlap: >> Part of our solution to XSA-254 SP3 (aka "Meltdown") is to backport >> the PVH mode from 4.10 to 4.9 and 4.8. This will first allow people >> able to run PVH kernels to switch their PV guests directly to PVH >> guests; and second, eventually enable the backport of patches which >> will enable transparent changing of PV guests into PVH guests. >> >> All of the hypervisor support seems to have existed already in 4.8, so >> the only backports involve toolstack patches. >> >> I've put up two trees for a first-cut backport of the PVH >> functionality, to 4.9 and 4.8 here: >> >> git://xenbits.xen.org/people/gdunlap/xen.git >> >> Branches out/pvh-backport/4.8/v1 and out/pvh-backport/4.9/v1 >> >> Below are the patches backported from 4.10 to 4.9 (23 patches total): > [...] > > So future 4.8 releases will include the backports, right? Asking because > the AFAICS the 4.8.3-pre-shim-comet branch include them but staging-4.8 > does not. Some of us have had informal conversations about backporting PVH and Comet host/toolstack patches to 4.8, and a number of us think it's a good idea, but we haven't had an official discussion with all the stakeholders yet. We'll come back to it once more of the fires have been put out. Feel free to remind us in a month or so if you still haven't seen any patches in the stable-4.8 branch. :-) -George ___ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] PVH backports to 4.9 and 4.8
George Dunlap: > Part of our solution to XSA-254 SP3 (aka "Meltdown") is to backport > the PVH mode from 4.10 to 4.9 and 4.8. This will first allow people > able to run PVH kernels to switch their PV guests directly to PVH > guests; and second, eventually enable the backport of patches which > will enable transparent changing of PV guests into PVH guests. > > All of the hypervisor support seems to have existed already in 4.8, so > the only backports involve toolstack patches. > > I've put up two trees for a first-cut backport of the PVH > functionality, to 4.9 and 4.8 here: > > git://xenbits.xen.org/people/gdunlap/xen.git > > Branches out/pvh-backport/4.8/v1 and out/pvh-backport/4.9/v1 > > Below are the patches backported from 4.10 to 4.9 (23 patches total): [...] So future 4.8 releases will include the backports, right? Asking because the AFAICS the 4.8.3-pre-shim-comet branch include them but staging-4.8 does not. Simon signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] PVH backports to 4.9 and 4.8
On 01/11/2018 12:01 PM, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 11:03:05AM +, George Dunlap wrote: >> On 01/11/2018 10:58 AM, Roger Pau Monné wrote: >>> On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 05:08:15PM +, George Dunlap wrote: Part of our solution to XSA-254 SP3 (aka "Meltdown") is to backport the PVH mode from 4.10 to 4.9 and 4.8. This will first allow people able to run PVH kernels to switch their PV guests directly to PVH guests; and second, eventually enable the backport of patches which will enable transparent changing of PV guests into PVH guests. All of the hypervisor support seems to have existed already in 4.8, so the only backports involve toolstack patches. >>> >>> Thanks for looking into this. >>> >>> My general opinion given those are toolstack only patches is that if >>> it works it's fine. >>> I've put up two trees for a first-cut backport of the PVH functionality, to 4.9 and 4.8 here: git://xenbits.xen.org/people/gdunlap/xen.git Branches out/pvh-backport/4.8/v1 and out/pvh-backport/4.9/v1 Below are the patches backported from 4.10 to 4.9 (23 patches total): Roger Pau Monnelibxl: add is_default checkers for string and timer_mode types Roger Pau Monnelibxl: introduce a way to mark fields as deprecated in the idl >>> >>> This or one of the related patches is going to add fields in >>> domain_build_info, which will break the ABI. Is this expected/OK? >> >> Oh right -- this needs to be ported to add the fields at the end. >> >> Going back to the 4.10 series, it looks like there are also some "shim >> host" patches having to do with enabling CPUID faulting in the guest. >> Do we need to backport those to 4.9 and 4.8 as well? ISTR they may rely >> on some hypervisor infrastructure which would then also need to be >> backported. > > IIRC those are for AMD hardware? > > Adding Andy who worked on those patches. From what I recall there were two parts: 1. Allow AMD to even enable CPUID faulting if available 2. Enable CPUID faulting for shim guests (both Intel and AMD) The point of #1 was to enable #2 on AMD hardware. -George ___ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] PVH backports to 4.9 and 4.8
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 11:03:05AM +, George Dunlap wrote: > On 01/11/2018 10:58 AM, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 05:08:15PM +, George Dunlap wrote: > >> Part of our solution to XSA-254 SP3 (aka "Meltdown") is to backport > >> the PVH mode from 4.10 to 4.9 and 4.8. This will first allow people > >> able to run PVH kernels to switch their PV guests directly to PVH > >> guests; and second, eventually enable the backport of patches which > >> will enable transparent changing of PV guests into PVH guests. > >> > >> All of the hypervisor support seems to have existed already in 4.8, so > >> the only backports involve toolstack patches. > > > > Thanks for looking into this. > > > > My general opinion given those are toolstack only patches is that if > > it works it's fine. > > > >> I've put up two trees for a first-cut backport of the PVH > >> functionality, to 4.9 and 4.8 here: > >> > >> git://xenbits.xen.org/people/gdunlap/xen.git > >> > >> Branches out/pvh-backport/4.8/v1 and out/pvh-backport/4.9/v1 > >> > >> Below are the patches backported from 4.10 to 4.9 (23 patches total): > >> > >> Roger Pau Monnelibxl: add is_default checkers for string and timer_mode > >> types > >> Roger Pau Monnelibxl: introduce a way to mark fields as deprecated in > >> the idl > > > > This or one of the related patches is going to add fields in > > domain_build_info, which will break the ABI. Is this expected/OK? > > Oh right -- this needs to be ported to add the fields at the end. > > Going back to the 4.10 series, it looks like there are also some "shim > host" patches having to do with enabling CPUID faulting in the guest. > Do we need to backport those to 4.9 and 4.8 as well? ISTR they may rely > on some hypervisor infrastructure which would then also need to be > backported. IIRC those are for AMD hardware? Adding Andy who worked on those patches. Roger. ___ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] PVH backports to 4.9 and 4.8
On 01/11/2018 10:58 AM, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 05:08:15PM +, George Dunlap wrote: >> Part of our solution to XSA-254 SP3 (aka "Meltdown") is to backport >> the PVH mode from 4.10 to 4.9 and 4.8. This will first allow people >> able to run PVH kernels to switch their PV guests directly to PVH >> guests; and second, eventually enable the backport of patches which >> will enable transparent changing of PV guests into PVH guests. >> >> All of the hypervisor support seems to have existed already in 4.8, so >> the only backports involve toolstack patches. > > Thanks for looking into this. > > My general opinion given those are toolstack only patches is that if > it works it's fine. > >> I've put up two trees for a first-cut backport of the PVH >> functionality, to 4.9 and 4.8 here: >> >> git://xenbits.xen.org/people/gdunlap/xen.git >> >> Branches out/pvh-backport/4.8/v1 and out/pvh-backport/4.9/v1 >> >> Below are the patches backported from 4.10 to 4.9 (23 patches total): >> >> Roger Pau Monne libxl: add is_default checkers for string and timer_mode >> types >> Roger Pau Monne libxl: introduce a way to mark fields as deprecated in >> the idl > > This or one of the related patches is going to add fields in > domain_build_info, which will break the ABI. Is this expected/OK? Oh right -- this needs to be ported to add the fields at the end. Going back to the 4.10 series, it looks like there are also some "shim host" patches having to do with enabling CPUID faulting in the guest. Do we need to backport those to 4.9 and 4.8 as well? ISTR they may rely on some hypervisor infrastructure which would then also need to be backported. But PVH shim guests seemed to boot fine under 4.9 / 4.8 without those patches, so I'm not sure how critical they are. -George ___ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] PVH backports to 4.9 and 4.8
On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 05:08:15PM +, George Dunlap wrote: > Part of our solution to XSA-254 SP3 (aka "Meltdown") is to backport > the PVH mode from 4.10 to 4.9 and 4.8. This will first allow people > able to run PVH kernels to switch their PV guests directly to PVH > guests; and second, eventually enable the backport of patches which > will enable transparent changing of PV guests into PVH guests. > > All of the hypervisor support seems to have existed already in 4.8, so > the only backports involve toolstack patches. Thanks for looking into this. My general opinion given those are toolstack only patches is that if it works it's fine. > I've put up two trees for a first-cut backport of the PVH > functionality, to 4.9 and 4.8 here: > > git://xenbits.xen.org/people/gdunlap/xen.git > > Branches out/pvh-backport/4.8/v1 and out/pvh-backport/4.9/v1 > > Below are the patches backported from 4.10 to 4.9 (23 patches total): > > Roger Pau Monne libxl: add is_default checkers for string and timer_mode > types > Roger Pau Monne libxl: introduce a way to mark fields as deprecated in > the idl This or one of the related patches is going to add fields in domain_build_info, which will break the ABI. Is this expected/OK? Roger. ___ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
