Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2009-Sep-15 01:22 UTC
Re: [Xen-devel] Xen Signature == "NovellShimHv" ???
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 11:24:43AM +1000, James Harper wrote:> A user of GPLPV is reporting a problem with the drivers on Windows 2008, > and it appears that GPLPV is finding a signature of ''NovellShimHv'' > instead of ''XenVMMXenVMM''. > > Can anyone suggest a reason for this?SLES10 SP2 Xen has the code for this. It is basically an early version of the Veridian interface.> > Thanks > > James > > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
A user of GPLPV is reporting a problem with the drivers on Windows 2008, and it appears that GPLPV is finding a signature of ''NovellShimHv'' instead of ''XenVMMXenVMM''. Can anyone suggest a reason for this? Thanks James _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
> > On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 11:24:43AM +1000, James Harper wrote: > > A user of GPLPV is reporting a problem with the drivers on Windows2008,> > and it appears that GPLPV is finding a signature of ''NovellShimHv'' > > instead of ''XenVMMXenVMM''. > > > > Can anyone suggest a reason for this? > > SLES10 SP2 Xen has the code for this. It is basically an early versionof the> Veridian interface.Ah. Hmmm. So does that mean that PV drivers on HVM domains (windows or Linux) aren''t going to work at all? Should I check for both ''NovellShimHv'' and ''XenVMMXenVMM''? I notice that the unmodified drivers tree under xen doesn''t check for this, and neither does hvmloader. James _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2009-Sep-15 02:03 UTC
Re: [Xen-devel] Xen Signature == "NovellShimHv" ???
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 11:41:41AM +1000, James Harper wrote:> > > > On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 11:24:43AM +1000, James Harper wrote: > > > A user of GPLPV is reporting a problem with the drivers on Windows > 2008, > > > and it appears that GPLPV is finding a signature of ''NovellShimHv'' > > > instead of ''XenVMMXenVMM''. > > > > > > Can anyone suggest a reason for this? > > > > SLES10 SP2 Xen has the code for this. It is basically an early version > of the > > Veridian interface. > > Ah. Hmmm. So does that mean that PV drivers on HVM domains (windows or > Linux) aren''t going to work at all? Should I check for bothI don''t think you need to worry about Linux. The shim enabled extra functionality so that under Windows 2008 (and further) you wouldn''t hit the BSOD watchdog failure. I don''t think any extra functionaly was provided besides that.> ''NovellShimHv'' and ''XenVMMXenVMM''? I notice that the unmodified drivers > tree under xen doesn''t check for this, and neither does hvmloader.Correct. SLES version to my recollection never made it to Xen-devel.> > James >_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
On 15/09/2009 02:41, "James Harper" <james.harper@bendigoit.com.au> wrote:>> SLES10 SP2 Xen has the code for this. It is basically an early version > of the >> Veridian interface. > > Ah. Hmmm. So does that mean that PV drivers on HVM domains (windows or > Linux) aren''t going to work at all? Should I check for both > ''NovellShimHv'' and ''XenVMMXenVMM''? I notice that the unmodified drivers > tree under xen doesn''t check for this, and neither does hvmloader.They may have moved XenVMMXenVMM out of the way to another leaf? Like we do with the checked-in Viridian shim. -- Keir _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>>> Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com> 15.09.09 09:30 >>> >On 15/09/2009 02:41, "James Harper" <james.harper@bendigoit.com.au> wrote: > >>> SLES10 SP2 Xen has the code for this. It is basically an early version >> of the >>> Veridian interface. >> >> Ah. Hmmm. So does that mean that PV drivers on HVM domains (windows or >> Linux) aren''t going to work at all? Should I check for both >> ''NovellShimHv'' and ''XenVMMXenVMM''? I notice that the unmodified drivers >> tree under xen doesn''t check for this, and neither does hvmloader. > >They may have moved XenVMMXenVMM out of the way to another leaf? Like we do >with the checked-in Viridian shim.Yes, to 0x40001xxx. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
> >They may have moved XenVMMXenVMM out of the way to another leaf? Likewe do> >with the checked-in Viridian shim. > > Yes, to 0x40001xxx. >I think I only check up to 0x0FFF (I think that''s all the HVM Linux drivers do). What is a reasonable ceiling? James _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
James, This user must be using a SLES based system. On SLES, the HyperV shim returns this signature. Regards, K. Y>>> On 9/14/2009 at 9:24 PM, in message<AEC6C66638C05B468B556EA548C1A77D0177D2B0@trantor>, "James Harper" <james.harper@bendigoit.com.au> wrote:> A user of GPLPV is reporting a problem with the drivers on Windows 2008, > and it appears that GPLPV is finding a signature of ''NovellShimHv'' > instead of ''XenVMMXenVMM''. > > Can anyone suggest a reason for this? > > Thanks > > James > > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>>> On 9/14/2009 at 9:41 PM, in message<AEC6C66638C05B468B556EA548C1A77D0177D2B2@trantor>, "James Harper" <james.harper@bendigoit.com.au> wrote:>> >> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 11:24:43AM +1000, James Harper wrote: >> > A user of GPLPV is reporting a problem with the drivers on Windows > 2008, >> > and it appears that GPLPV is finding a signature of ''NovellShimHv'' >> > instead of ''XenVMMXenVMM''. >> > >> > Can anyone suggest a reason for this? >> >> SLES10 SP2 Xen has the code for this. It is basically an early version > of the >> Veridian interface. > > Ah. Hmmm. So does that mean that PV drivers on HVM domains (windows or > Linux) aren''t going to work at all? Should I check for both > ''NovellShimHv'' and ''XenVMMXenVMM''? I notice that the unmodified drivers > tree under xen doesn''t check for this, and neither does hvmloader. > > JamesA simple workaround here might be to disable the HyperV shim when you are loading GPL PV drivers for windows on a SLES host; this is done by setting extid = 0 in the VM config file. If you want the shim enabled and run GPL PV , you have more issues than the hypervisor signature. Some of the CPUID leaves and MSRs of Xen and HyerV collide and this needs to be disambiguated. Regards, K. Y> > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>>> "James Harper" <james.harper@bendigoit.com.au> 15.09.09 11:15 >>> > >They may have moved XenVMMXenVMM out of the way to another leaf? Like >we do >> >with the checked-in Viridian shim. >> >> Yes, to 0x40001xxx. >> > >I think I only check up to 0x0FFF (I think that''s all the HVM Linux >drivers do). What is a reasonable ceiling?Perhaps you''ll want to scan the whole virtualization reserved space, which iirc is up to 0x4000ffff. Keir, perhaps xen-detect should also be adjusted accordingly? Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
On 15/09/2009 13:54, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@novell.com> wrote:>> I think I only check up to 0x0FFF (I think that''s all the HVM Linux >> drivers do). What is a reasonable ceiling? > > Perhaps you''ll want to scan the whole virtualization reserved space, which > iirc is up to 0x4000ffff. > > Keir, perhaps xen-detect should also be adjusted accordingly?Can do. Is the step size of 0x100 okay (i.e., searching 0x4000xx00)? -- Keir _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>>> Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com> 15.09.09 15:13 >>> >On 15/09/2009 13:54, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@novell.com> wrote: > >>> I think I only check up to 0x0FFF (I think that''s all the HVM Linux >>> drivers do). What is a reasonable ceiling? >> >> Perhaps you''ll want to scan the whole virtualization reserved space, which >> iirc is up to 0x4000ffff. >> >> Keir, perhaps xen-detect should also be adjusted accordingly? > >Can do. Is the step size of 0x100 okay (i.e., searching 0x4000xx00)?Yes. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel