Re: [Xen-devel] RFC on deprivileged x86 hypervisor device models

[Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 17/07/15 16:38, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 17.07.15 at 17:19, <Ben.Catterall@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 17/07/15 15:20, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> If not, then method 2 would seem quite a bit less troublesome than
>>> method 1, yet method 3 would (even if more involved in terms of
>>> changes to be done) perhaps result in the most elegant result.
>> I agree that method three is more elegant. If both you and Andrew are ok 
>> with going in a per-vcpu stack direction for Xen in general then I'll 
>> write a per-vcpu patch first and then do another patch which adds the 
>> ring 3 feature on-top of that.
> Actually improvements to common/wait.c have also been thought of
> long ago already, for whenever per-vCPU stacks would be available.
> The few users of these interfaces never resulted in this becoming
> important enough a work item, unfortunately.

While per-vcpu stacks would be nice, there are a number of challenges to
be overcome before they can sensibly be used.  Off the top of my head,
per-vcpu state living at the top of the stack, hard coded stack
addresses in the emulation stubs, IST stacks moving back onto the
primary stack and splitting out a separate irq stack if the ring0 stack
wants to be left with partial state on.

Therefore I recommend method 2 to reuse the existing kudge we have. 
That will allow you to actually investigate some of the depriv aspects
in the time you have.

~Andrew

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