[Xen-devel] Re: Addback capability check for non-initial features

[Keir Fraser <keir.xen@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 10/06/2011 07:33, "Dong, Eddie" <eddie.dong@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>>> 
>>> add back missing capability check of MSR_IA32_VMX_PROCBASED_CTLS.
>>> 
>>> Besides initial configuration, adjust_vmx_controls is responsible for
>>> hardware capibility check as well. This patch add back the check.
>> 
>> I suppose the CPU_BASED_VIRTUAL_INTR_PENDING addition is correct, for
>> what
>> it's worth (surely every VMX-capable CPU ever has and will support that).
>> 
>> The change to CR8 detection looks mad and incorrect. You've inverted it so
>> that CR8 exits get enabled when TPR_SHADOW is available, rather than
>> when it
> 
> CR8 exit is removed later on if TPR_SHADOW exist:)

Not in your patch. You remove it later if TPR_SHADOW *doesn't* exist.

> The only difference is that if there are processors that support TPR_SHADOW
> only, I can check internally if this is the concern.
> Current nested vmx is assuming CR8 exiting is presented to emulate L1 guest
> CR8 exiting. TPR_SHAOW can't trap CR8 read though cr8 write trap is OK w/ TPR
> shadow.

Hmm okay.

> Eventually I want to have a minimal common set of capability that is supported
> by all HW and is presented to L1 guest.
> 
>> isn't, surely? And that can't be correct. I don't see how the CR8-exit
>> detection and enabling is wrong, as it is already.
> 
> The original code for CR8 exit is correct too :)

More correct than yours :)

 -- Keir

> Thx, Eddie



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