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] Weekly VMX status report. Xen: #18846 & Xen0: #749

To: Gianluca Guida <gianluca.guida@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Weekly VMX status report. Xen: #18846 & Xen0: #749
From: Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2008 14:06:18 +0000
Cc: "Li, Haicheng" <haicheng.li@xxxxxxxxx>, "'xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Li, Xin" <xin.li@xxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Sat, 13 Dec 2008 06:06:28 -0800
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <4942F41D.6060702@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: AcldK/fZZNTFfVr6k0WK9hRQshPOTw==
Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] Weekly VMX status report. Xen: #18846 & Xen0: #749
User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.14.0.081024
On 12/12/2008 23:30, "Gianluca Guida" <gianluca.guida@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Keir Fraser wrote:
>> Is there any guest that actually cares about having EFER_NX really cleared?
>> Presumably the only way of detecting this would be reserved-bit page faults,
>> which no OS is likely to want to deliberately cause?
> 
> Yes, no OS we've actually experienced at the moment rely on reserved bit
> faults (with the most notable exception of Tim's fast path for MMIO and
> non present pages in Xen's shadow entries).
> I am sure about this for a very simple reason: -- some kind of secret I
> would like to share with you and xen-devel -- shadow code doesn't check
> at all for reserved bits when propagating changes from guest to shadows,
> so we never propagate reserved bit faults to guests. [working on this]

Well, I vote for leaving EFER_NX always on then. It makes the code simpler
too. Anyone against this?

 -- Keir



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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>