Ling, Xiaofeng
2005-May-25 06:26 UTC
RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH]vbd/vnif paravirtulization driver hypervisorsupport]
Ian Pratt <mailto:m+Ian.Pratt@cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:>> Is there any comment for this patch? >> Is it acceptable or not? > > I think it needs a more work. Using grant tables should help unifyThe grant table support is already in for vbd. and without grant table configuration can also work.> things. I''m convinced that you''re missing out on some unifying > paradigm that will cause many of the "if(VMX_DOMAIN(current))" > clauses to evaporate.Most of the VMX_DOMAIN is used for copy_to/from_user, __get_user/__put_user things. Because VMX domain has separate address space. these function can not be used directly. I''ve add a condition in copy_to/from_user, but some place, it uses separated array_access_ok and __copy_to/from_user. For __get_user/__put_user, in some place, that can still be used, like linear page table, some place, that must be replaced with copy_to/from_guest. So do you have better idea to deal with these things? Or we use shadow_mode_external() to separate the path? _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Keir Fraser
2005-May-25 07:54 UTC
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH]vbd/vnif paravirtulization driver hypervisorsupport]
On 25 May 2005, at 07:26, Ling, Xiaofeng wrote:> Or we use shadow_mode_external() to separate the path?That would make sense. Also push the test into the copy routines themselves. entry.S is a big mess now. Consider pulling *all* the vmx stuff out into vmx.S. -- Keir _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Xiaofeng Ling
2005-Jun-03 02:40 UTC
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH]vbd/vnif paravirtulization driver hypervisorsupport]
It''s now all use shadow_mode_external, and use a permit bitmap for hypercall from vmx domain. Do you think it''s now acceptable? It''s against 1657. Keir Fraser wrote:> > On 25 May 2005, at 07:26, Ling, Xiaofeng wrote: > >> Or we use shadow_mode_external() to separate the path? > > > That would make sense. Also push the test into the copy routines > themselves. > > entry.S is a big mess now. Consider pulling *all* the vmx stuff out into > vmx.S. > > -- Keir >_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Keir Fraser
2005-Jun-03 07:58 UTC
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH]vbd/vnif paravirtulization driver hypervisorsupport]
On 3 Jun 2005, at 03:40, Xiaofeng Ling wrote:> It''s now all use shadow_mode_external, and use a permit bitmap for > hypercall from vmx domain. > Do you think it''s now acceptable? > It''s against 1657.Still messy imo. When I said to split the path by shadow_mode_externel, I meant you should do it within the uaccess macros/functions; not in their callers. But I''m not sure that is the best way either. Since VMX uses so few hypercalls, and you can easily define a new hypercall jump table in C, why not jump at alternative wrappers for those hypercalls that do the correct copy to/from guest, and then share the common guts of the hypercall with the paravirtualised version? I guess it depends how embedded in the core of each hypercall the VMX changes are... -- Keir _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel