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] Communication between HVM and dom0 through the Hyperviso

To: "Petersson, Mats" <Mats.Petersson@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Communication between HVM and dom0 through the Hypervisor
From: Mark Williamson <mark.williamson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 15:06:59 +0100
Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Daniele Sgandurra <dansgan@xxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 07:07:14 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <907625E08839C4409CE5768403633E0B018E1C20@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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>
References: <907625E08839C4409CE5768403633E0B018E1C20@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: KMail/1.9.5
> > It it possible to arrange for a VMEXIT to occur on int 0x80
> > (which IIRC is the
> > Linux system call...  I guess VT-x would also be able to
> > intercept sysenter)?
> > That way the guest wouldn't have to be modified to notify
> > Xen.  Xen would
> > then have to e.g. share a ring buffer with dom0 regarding
> > events of this
> > nature for each domain.  You could hack something up so that
> > the guest
> > blocked on each syscall until dom0 acknowledged it...
>
> Now,that's a brilliant idea. Why didn't I think of that.
>
> Only one minor problem: It will only work for INT n instructions (but
> since it's possible to hide SYSENTER/SYSCALL instrutions from the guest
> via CPUID intercept, it can at least for 32-bit be forced to only do INT
> 80h calls), and only on AMD processors (this is more of a problem, as
> the original post talks about Intel processors). Intel processors don't
> allow intercepts of INT n instructions. Neither processor allow
> intercepts of SYSENTER/SYSCALL instructions. [It's still a very good
> idea, and I wish I had at least THOUGHT of it!]

Perhaps on intel, something could be bodged together?  E.g. intercept loading 
the IDT and replace the handler for the int n you're interested in with 
something that'll cause a trap?  I'm not really clear out sysenter etc 
actually works, so not so sure about that.

I did read through the VT-x / VT-i manuals at some stage, but it's a long time 
ago and things are a bit hazy now :-)

Cheers,
Mark

-- 
Dave: Just a question. What use is a unicyle with no seat?  And no pedals!
Mark: To answer a question with a question: What use is a skateboard?
Dave: Skateboards have wheels.
Mark: My wheel has a wheel!

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