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/
Home Products Support Community News


RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Proper use of VMX execution controls MSR.

To: "Li, Xin B" <xin.b.li@xxxxxxxxx>, <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Proper use of VMX execution controls MSR.
From: "Cui, Dexuan" <dexuan.cui@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 09:15:11 +0800
Delivery-date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 18:14:29 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <C2306C24.4FFE%Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
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: AcdxUQOcmZ2ehsIdTvOT1iiVu1vOEgAEiiMSAA8FTMA=
Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Proper use of VMX execution controls MSR.
The patch conforms to the spec strictly, but I also think the spec is really 
Seems Keir hasn't checked it in.

 -- Dexuan

>-----Original Message-----
>From: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Keir Fraser
>Sent: 2007年3月29日 2:02
>To: Li, Xin B; xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Proper use of VMX execution controls MSR.
>On 28/3/07 16:51, "Li, Xin B" <xin.b.li@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Better use of VMX execution controls MSR.
>> Signed-off-by: Xin Li<xin.b.li@xxxxxxxxx>
>Is this actually to fix a problem with a future processor?
>This whole bit-forcing thing seems extremely odd to me. We set the controls
>that Xen currently needs to do its job as a VMM properly -- we can't just
>clear some of those controls because the processor says to do so. So I think
>our current treatment of the MSR high bits is appropriate (if it tells us to
>zero one of the control bits that we make use of, we are in trouble -- we
>have a processor that isn't backwards compatible!).
>I also feel uneasy about setting extra bits (as specified by the MSR low
>bits), but I reason that if we are told to set bits of flags which are
>currently architecturally-undefined then it is reasonable to let the
>processor tell us what to do with them. Which is why I do respect the MSR
>low bits.
>Why did Intel ever choose this insane scheme? Would it have been so hard to
>have defined bitmaps with set-to-enable semantics, and always require zero
>for reserved bits? Actually I suppose you do have set-to-enable semantics
>(otherwise my current asymmetric treatment of MSR high and low words would
>not make sense). But all this messing with setting vs. clearing reserved
>bits seems pretty stupid.
> -- Keir
>Xen-devel mailing list

Xen-devel mailing list