[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] common/gnttab: Introduce command line feature controls
On 25/08/17 14:10, Andrew Cooper wrote: > On 25/08/17 10:57, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 24.08.17 at 17:16, <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On 24/08/17 16:01, Juergen Gross wrote: >>>> On 24/08/17 16:50, Andrew Cooper wrote: >>>>> --- a/docs/misc/xen-command-line.markdown >>>>> +++ b/docs/misc/xen-command-line.markdown >>>>> @@ -868,6 +868,19 @@ Controls EPT related features. >>>>> >>>>> Specify which console gdbstub should use. See **console**. >>>>> >>>>> +### gnttab >>>>> +> `= List of [ max_ver:<integer>, transitive ]` >>>>> + >>>>> +> Default: `gnttab=max_ver:2,transitive` >>>>> + >>>>> +Control various aspects of the grant table behaviour available to guests. >>>>> + >>>>> +* `max_ver` Select the maximum grant table version to offer to guests. >>>>> Valid >>>>> +version are 1 and 2. >>>>> +* `transitive` Permit or disallow the use of transitive grants. Note >>>>> that the >>>>> +use of grant table v2 without transitive grants is an ABI breakage from >>>>> the >>>>> +guests point of view. >>>> So shouldn't there be a way for the guest to query the support of >>>> transient grants? >>> Ideally yes, but how do you suggest doing this in a compatible way? >>> >>> All Xen downstreams which haven't backported the eventual transitive >>> fixes will have this clobber in place, without any query-ability. >> That workaround should not be used as an argument to not >> provide a way to query the capability. It was put in place knowing >> that it would cause problems for (hypothetical) guests using >> transitive grants. > > I am not objecting to introducing a mechanism if a suitable one can be > found. > > However, the heritage of XSA-226 is a valid reason to not block this > patch because a mechanism isn't present. > >> >> I'm not sure Jürgen's ELF note suggestion would be very useful >> though: I don't see how Xen knowing a guest kernel can deal with >> the situation would change anything - I don't think we should >> fail the loading of a kernel without such a note when transitive >> grants are disabled, not the least because we know of no kernels >> using them, and hence we'd pointlessly prevent the use of older >> kernels in such a case. >> >> What about a negative XENFEAT_*? New code could query it, >> and existing code is hosed anyway if run on such a system. > > Better yet, how about combining it with Juergens "xen: add new hypercall > to get grant table limits"? I suspect this new hypercall has just been killed. > We could have a features_available bitmap along with other gnttab > related maxima. Feel free to recycle my patch then. :-) OTOH XENFEAT_* might be just the place where such information should be made available. Juergen _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |