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] 32/64-bit hypercall interface

To: "Hollis Blanchard" <hollisb@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] 32/64-bit hypercall interface
From: "Nakajima, Jun" <jun.nakajima@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 14:24:03 -0700
Cc: Jeremy Katz <katzj@xxxxxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Ian Pratt <Ian.Pratt@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 21:50:09 +0000
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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: AcXIUL7I3oo3UPAlQHKBKas5jbd7OgADtP0w
Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] 32/64-bit hypercall interface
Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> On Monday 03 October 2005 14:11, Nakajima, Jun wrote:
>> In terms of ABI/API, since Xen needs to disiguish 32-bit or 64-bit
>> guests anyway at runtime, I don't think we don't need to change the
>> size of any types at this point (i.e. before 3.0).
> 
> You would instead propose a compatibility layer in Xen? So when a
> hypercall from a 32-bit guest arrives at a 64-bit hypervisor, Xen
> code converts the 32-bit structure into a 64-bit one and passes that
> pointer on to the rest of Xen? And then for return values you'd
> convert the other way. Hmm, and of course you wouldn't be able to
> pass 64-bit addresses back, such as via dom0_tbufcontrol_t.

I don't think dom0_tbufcontrol_t is a good example (as dicussed). Do you
have other examples?

> 
> As mentioned previously, this is the approach Linux uses
> (linux/fs/compat_ioctl.c), and it seems less than ideal to me. Since
> we have the ability to fix it now (i.e. make the 32-bit and 64-bit
> ABI identical), shouldn't we do that rather than this copying/munging
> layer? 

The 32-bit and 64-bit hypercall ABI cannot be identical on x86 because
of the generic ABI difference between 32-bit and 64-bit. 

Jun
---
Intel Open Source Technology Center

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