On Fri, 2015-06-05 at 19:25 +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
>
> On 05/06/2015 17:09, Ian Campbell wrote:
> >> + * injection, ignoring level 2 & 3.
> >> + */
> >> + if ( gicv3_sgir_to_cpumask(&vcpu_mask, sgir) )
> >> + {
> >> + gprintk(XENLOG_WARNING, "Wrong affinity in SGI1R_EL
> >> register\n");
> >
> > I don't think we need to log this. The guest has asked to send an SGI to
> > a VCPU which we know can't possibly exist. I'm not sure what real h/w
> > would do, but if it is e.g. UNPREDICTABLE then we should consider
> > killing the guest here. I suspect it's actually just ignored, in which
> > case we can silently do the same.
>
> From the spec:
>
> "Note: if a bit is one and the bit does not correspond to a valid target
> processor, the bit must be ignored by the Distributor. In such cases, a
> Distributor may optionally generate an SEI."
>
> The implementation of SEI is implementation defined. I'm not sure what
> would be the right behavior to adopt here.
In general I'm in favour of being as harsh as allowed by default (i.e.
without a good reason to do otherwise), to avoid guests coming to rely
on lenient behaviour which we might find we want to change in the
future.
Ian
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
