WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] machine check support in HVM guests

To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>, Keir Fraser <keir@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] machine check support in HVM guests
From: Keir Fraser <keir@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 14:36:12 +0000
Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 06:36:15 -0800
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <456B0090.76E4.0078.0@xxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: AccSMWKVoPXZHH4kEduPjQAX8io7RQ==
Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] machine check support in HVM guests
User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.2.5.060620
No, I'm not saying that. I was simply expecting that it would be easy to
fake out a very minimal machine-check emulation where nothing ever goes
wrong. :-) If that involves GPFing on some MSR accesses, those are easy to
inject into an HVM guest I believe.

 -- Keir

On 27/11/06 14:13, "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Oh, btw., are you implicitly telling me that forcing a GP fault on reads
> (and ideally also writes) of invalid MSRs then is also impossible? That
> is what I'm in the process of adding, at least for the case where Xen
> itself also receives a GP fault when reading the respective physical
> MSR.
> 
> Jan
> 
>>>> Keir Fraser <keir@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 27.11.06 14:27 >>>
> On 27/11/06 12:29, "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> Neither SVM nor VMX suppress CPUID[1].EDX.MC{E,A}, but there also is no
>> virtualization of the respective MSRs. Since the latter seems to have at best
>> marginal usefulness, shouldn't CPUID be respectively updated?
> 
> Virtualisation of CPUID is currently back-to-front imo. We should be
> supplying an entirely fake CPUID space, filled in with native info only in
> places where that makes sense. Instead we supply native info, replaced with
> virtualised alternatives where that turns out to be needed. This, for
> example, means we cannot guarantee to support HVM guests with current Xen on
> future processors. They may extend the CPUID space in a way that current Xen
> does not understand and cause guests to try to use features that Xen does
> not virtualise or emulate.
> 
> For your specific question, MCE/MCA used to be removed but 64-bit Windows
> requires this feature to be available (not sure if it's just for WHQL
> though). So we should emulate some basic MC support; enough to accept and
> discard MSR programming at least.
> 
>  -- Keir
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel