Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 10/14] Nested Virtualization: svm specifi

On Tuesday 17 August 2010 18:57:55 Tim Deegan wrote:
> At 16:49 +0100 on 17 Aug (1282063795), Christoph Egger wrote:
> > > Can you explain why we shouldn't sync the vTPR and the vlapic state
> > > when the guest is in nested mode?
> >
> > When the vcpu is in guest mode then
> > v->arch.hvm_svm.vmcb->vintr.fields.tpr represents the tpr of the l2
> > guest. The l2 guest is not allowed to touch the l1 guest's vTPR.
>
> Hmmm.  I'm not sure I understand exactly what the hardware vTPR should
> contain when the L2 is running; I'll have to think back about exactly
> what the sync of vtpr <-> vlapic means and whether the L2 guest can
> cause surprising things to happen by setting the vTPR.

The l2 guest can confuse the l1 guest. E.g. Booting Windows 7
as l1 guest and the XP mode as l2 guest won't work when done
incorrectly. The l1 guest handles the vtpr and vlapic for the l2 guest
and noone else.

Christoph

-- 
---to satisfy European Law for business letters:
Advanced Micro Devices GmbH
Einsteinring 24, 85609 Dornach b. Muenchen
Geschaeftsfuehrer: Alberto Bozzo, Andrew Bowd
Sitz: Dornach, Gemeinde Aschheim, Landkreis Muenchen
Registergericht Muenchen, HRB Nr. 43632


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

<Prev in Thread]

Current Thread

[Next in Thread>

Previous by Date:

[Xen-devel] Re: [RFC]PLE's performance enhancement through improving scheduler., Keir Fraser

Next by Date:

Re: [Xen-devel] time accounting problem in pvops kernel, Paolo Bonzini

Previous by Thread:

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 10/14] Nested Virtualization: svm specific implementation, Tim Deegan

Next by Thread:

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 10/14] Nested Virtualization: svm specific implementation, Tim Deegan

Indexes:

[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]