Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH for-4.5 v6 05/16] tools: Add vmware_port support

[Don Slutz <dslutz@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 09/24/14 12:24, George Dunlap wrote:
> On 09/22/2014 10:22 PM, Don Slutz wrote:
> > On 09/22/14 12:34, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> > > On 22/09/14 14:41, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 2014-09-20 at 14:07 -0400, Don Slutz wrote:
> > > > > This new libxl_domain_create_info field is used to set
> > > > > XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_vmware_port for the xc_domain_create() routine.
> > > > Does this really need to be a CDF, rather than a domctl/hvm param?
> > > I have made the argument that many things which are currently HVM 
> > > Params
> > > should be CDF, as they absolutely should be set and immutable for the
> > > entire lifetime of the domain.
> > >
> > >  From recollection, we have had several XSAs in the past which are
> > > directly attributable to the toolstack or guest being able to play with
> > > an (insufficiently locked down) HVM param after boot.
> > >
> > > Using a CDF avoids potential issues along these lines.
> > It also allow setting up v->arch.hvm_vmx.exception_bitmap at
> > the right time.  domctl/hvm params are setup much latter in
> > the life of a domain.
> Isn't that already modified on a cr change (a la vmx_update_guest_cr())?

The following is not true for my testing:

        if ( (!vmx_unrestricted_guest(v)) &&
             (realmode != v->arch.hvm_vmx.vmx_realmode) )
        {


vmx_unrestricted_guest() is true.

> Or did you mean the SVM side?
Also needed there.

> I'm not making an argument either way (although at the moment I'm more 
> sympathetic to Andy's view), just questioning whether setting the exit 
> flag is that much of an argument one way or another.
Since Andy and the exit flag are saying the same thing, I do not
care which is a better argument.  (I.E. the way it is coded in this
patch).


   -Don Slutz

>  -George

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel