| |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC][PATCH][1/4] Intel(R) Trusted Execution Technology
|
To: |
"Cihula, Joseph" <joseph.cihula@xxxxxxxxx>, <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <xense-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
Subject: |
Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC][PATCH][1/4] Intel(R) Trusted Execution Technology support: xen |
|
From: |
Keir Fraser <keir@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
Date: |
Thu, 30 Aug 2007 18:59:30 +0100 |
|
Cc: |
"Xu, James" <james.xu@xxxxxxxxx>, "Wang, Shane" <shane.wang@xxxxxxxxx>, "Wei, Gang" <gang.wei@xxxxxxxxx>, "Zhai, Edwin" <edwin.zhai@xxxxxxxxx> |
|
Delivery-date: |
Thu, 30 Aug 2007 11:00:16 -0700 |
|
Envelope-to: |
www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|
In-reply-to: |
<D936D925018D154694D8A362EEB08920024A212E@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
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: |
Acfp01AFWEdUfIQmRfyDf3HETiYK8QBG4bGUAAwqiPAABACQxg== |
|
Thread-topic: |
[Xen-devel] [RFC][PATCH][1/4] Intel(R) Trusted Execution Technology support: xen |
|
User-agent: |
Microsoft-Entourage/11.3.6.070618 |
On 30/8/07 17:17, "Cihula, Joseph" <joseph.cihula@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Changes to Xen for Intel(R <<txt-xen-0828_01-xen.patch>> ) TXT
>>> support.
>>
>> Is there any documentation for the processor changes for TXT support
>> (e.g., the additions to IA32_FEATURE_CONTROL_MSR, among others)?
> Googling
>> for TXT is not very helpful. :-)
Okay, current situation on the Xen path is that it's all checked in except:
* the changes to shutdown.c and smp.c
* the bits that actually interface with sboot (that's most of the bits
inside CONFIG_TXT).
For the former, I'd like it to be a separate cleanup patch, with some
explanation of why it's required. For example, whay is the code movement in
smp.c required at all?
For the latter, I would like Xen to have its own asm-x86/sboot.h, even
though this causes a small amount of code duplication outside of th esboot
module itself. It is supposed to become a stable interface after all. The
bit syou need from uuid.h can also be included in Xen's sboot.h. All the
names you create in Xen's sboot.h should have a suitable common prefix on
them. I guess mle_ might do the trick, although I don't actually know what
MLE stands for?!
That's all for now. The sboot module itself is scary big. :-/
Oh, you can find the current tip to re-merge against at
http://xenbits.xensource.com/staging/xen-unstable.hg
-- Keir
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
|
|
| |
|
Home