Re: [Xen-devel] SMAP/SMEP issues with 32-bit pv guests

["Wu, Feng" <feng.wu@xxxxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Cooper [mailto:andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, August 1, 2016 8:31 PM
> To: Wang, Yong Y <yong.y.wang@xxxxxxxxx>; Wu, Feng <feng.wu@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Nakajima, Jun <jun.nakajima@xxxxxxxxx>; Jan Beulich
> (JBeulich@xxxxxxxx) <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>; xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: SMAP/SMEP issues with 32-bit pv guests
> 
> On 01/08/16 13:24, Wang, Yong Y wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Andrew Cooper [mailto:andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx]
> >> Sent: Monday, August 1, 2016 6:16 PM
> >> To: Wu, Feng <feng.wu@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> Cc: Nakajima, Jun <jun.nakajima@xxxxxxxxx>; Wang, Yong Y
> >> <yong.y.wang@xxxxxxxxx>; Jan Beulich (JBeulich@xxxxxxxx)
> >> <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>; xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> Subject: Re: SMAP/SMEP issues with 32-bit pv guests
> >>
> >> On 28/06/16 02:58, Wu, Feng wrote:
> >>> Hi Andy,
> >>>
> >>> As you know, SMAP/SMEP may affect the 32-bit pv guests, after
> discussed
> >> internally, our current idea is that we can just disable this two feature 
> >> for
> Xen
> >> hypervisor itself, hence only enable it for HVM guests. Do you think this 
> >> is
> >> acceptable from your perspective?
> >>
> >> So you are suggesting that Xen detects SMEP/SMAP, doesn't turn it on for
> >> itself, but does allow HVM guests to use it?
> >>
> > Yes, that is correct.
> >
> >> I suppose that is a slight improvement over the current situation.
> >>
> > Do you mind being a bit more clear on this? Is this something you want to
> see or do you want something else?
> 
> It is an improvement, so go ahead.
> 

Great, Thanks Andrew!

Thanks,
Feng

> ~Andrew

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