lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Feb]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 3/3] paravirt: rename paravirt_enabled to paravirt_legacy
On Sat, Feb 06, 2016 at 12:05:32PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 12:59 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@suse.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 11:11:34PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> On Feb 5, 2016 8:30 PM, "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > paravirt_enabled conveys the idea that if this is set or if
> >> > paravirt_enabled() returns true you are in a paravirtualized
> >> > environment. This is not true by any means, and left as-is
> >> > is just causing confusion and is prone to be misused and abused.
> >> >
> >> > This primitive is really only useful to determine if you have a
> >> > paravirtualization hypervisor that supports legacy paravirtualized
> >> > guests. At run time, this tells us if we've booted into a Linux guest
> >> > with support for legacy devices and features.
> >> >
> >> > To avoid further issues with semantics on this we loosely borrow
> >> > the definition of "legacy" from both the ACPI 5.2.9.3 "IA-PC Boot
> >> > Architecture Flags" section and the PC 2001 definition in the PC
> >> > Systems design guide [0]:
> >> >
> >> > paravirt_legacy() is true if this hypervisor supports legacy
> >> > x86 paravirtualized guests.
> >>
> >> This needs to be far more concrete. I'm reasonably well versed in x86
> >> details relevant to kernels ans I have *no clue* what your semantics
> >> mean.
> >
> > Interesting. I'm glad you're chiming in :)
> >
> >> > +/**
> >> > + * struct pv_info - paravirt hypervisor information
> >> > + *
> >> > + * @supports_x86_legacy: true if this hypervisor supports legacy x86
> >> > + * paravirtualized guests. The definition of legacy here adheres
> >> > + * *loosely* to both the notion of legacy in the ACPI 5.2.9.3 "IA-PC Boot
> >> > + * Architecture Flags" section and the PC 2001 "legacy free" concept [1]
> >> > + * referred to in the PC System Design Guide [2] [3] on Chapter 3, Page 50
> >> > + * [4]. Legacy x86 guests systems are guest systems which are not "legacy
> >> > + * free" as per the PC 2001 definition, and in the ACPI sense could have
> >> > + * any of the legacy ACPI IA-PC Boot architecture flags set. These are x86
> >> > + * systems with any type of legacy peripherals or requirements.
> >> > + *
> >> > + * Examples of some popular legacy peripherals:
> >> > + *
> >> > + * a) Floppy drive
> >> > + * b) Legacy ports [1] such as such as parallel ports, PS/2 connectors,
> >> > + * serial ports / RS-232, game ports Parallel ATA, and IEEE 1394
> >> > + * c) ISA bus
> >> > + *
> >> > + * Examples of features required to support such type of legacy guests
> >> > + * are the need for APM and a PNP BIOS.
> >>
> >> Seriously?
> >>
> >> I think you just defined every standard native x86 system
> >> as well as QEMU/KVM as "legacy".
> >
> > I was a afraid it was too broad, but its why I used "loosely".
> >
> >> Can we just enumerate this crap? I propose:
> >>
> >> Xen PV and lguest are paravirt_legacy. Nothing else is
> >> paravirt_legacy.
> >
> > Fine by me!
> >
> >> The addition of new paravirt_legacy support is
> >> strongly discouraged.
> >
> > Fine by me, but Boris is re-using that for HVMLite on his recently
> > proposed patches. Do we want that ? I'll also note that the goal
> > is to ensure its hardware_subarch will be 0 (PC), meanwhile old
> > PV will be Xen (although this hasn't been set yet). This mess is
> > part of the reason why I do think stronger semantics and clearer
> > definitions will help here. Without strong semantics I can't help
> > address the dead code concerns I've been rambling over.
> >
> > HVMLite is just a rebranding for PVH done right, and then it seems PVH will be
> > dropped and we'll have HVMLite rebranded back to PVH I guess it seems.
>
> PVH/HVMlite had better not be "paravirt" in this sense, I hope.

Cc'ing David Vrabel so he's aware of this ongoing discussion, which
relates to the HVMLite series.

As far as I follow both this patch series discussion and the HVMLite patch
series by Boris O, it doesn't sound like we yet have a solution for this given
that as-is the patch series for HVMLite still uses paravirt_enabled = 1.

Perhaps the discussion ongoing on this thread will lead us to a safe way to
distinguish.

> > The enumeration of legacy crap by ACPI boot flags seems to provide enough
> > details to suit our needs if we really wanted to zero down on the specifics of
> > what paravirt_legacy() means, there are these flags:
> >
> > /* Masks for FADT IA-PC Boot Architecture Flags (boot_flags) [Vx]=Introduced in this FADT revision */
> > #define ACPI_FADT_LEGACY_DEVICES (1) /* 00: [V2] System has LPC or ISA bus devices */
> > #define ACPI_FADT_8042 (1<<1) /* 01: [V3] System has an 8042 controller on port 60/64 */
> > #define ACPI_FADT_NO_VGA (1<<2) /* 02: [V4] It is not safe to probe for VGA hardware */
> > #define ACPI_FADT_NO_MSI (1<<3) /* 03: [V4] Message Signaled Interrupts (MSI) must not be enabled */
> > #define ACPI_FADT_NO_ASPM (1<<4) /* 04: [V4] PCIe ASPM control must not be enabled */
> > #define ACPI_FADT_NO_CMOS_RTC (1<<5) /* 05: [V5] No CMOS real-time clock present */
> >
> > I checked and I didn't see qemu using any of the ACPI boot flags,
> > but I suspected qemu instances must use a series of legacy crap.
> > Likewise for KVM.
>
> So shouldn't Linux find out things from the FADT by reading the FADT
> rather than squishing them into a confusing single function?

Boris O replied saying it seems some Xen PV guests can exist without ACPI,
but I was in the same hope as you were as it would seem the architecturally
sane way to do this. PV legacy should ultimately die, so I'm not too
concerned over it, I think we just need a clean way to deprecate it without
causing regressions, but also enabling the best architecture forward.

> Anyway, this is all ridiculous. I propose that rather than trying to
> clean up paravirt_enabled, you just delete it.

Yay.

> Here are its users:
>
> static inline bool is_hypervisor_range(int idx)
> {
> /*
> * ffff800000000000 - ffff87ffffffffff is reserved for
> * the hypervisor.
> */
> return paravirt_enabled() &&
> (idx >= pgd_index(__PAGE_OFFSET) - 16) &&
> (idx < pgd_index(__PAGE_OFFSET));
> }
>
> Nope, wrong. I don't really know what this code is trying to do, but
> I'm pretty sure it's wrong. Did this mean to check "is Xen PV"? Or
> was it "is Xen PV or lgeust"? Or what?

It seems Boris and others have replied to this and a solution to replace
it is in sight without paravirt_enabled().

> if (apm_info.bios.version == 0 || paravirt_enabled() ||
> machine_is_olpc()) {
> printk(KERN_INFO "apm: BIOS not found.\n");
> return -ENODEV;
> }
>
> I assume that is trying to avoid checking for APM on systems that are
> known to be too new. How about cleanup up the condition to check
> something sensible?

With my patch series I am pretty sure I can remove this check by
relying on the subarch.

> if (!paravirt_enabled() && c->x86 == 5 && c->x86_model < 9) {
> static int f00f_workaround_enabled;
> [...]
>
> This is asking "are we the natively booted kernel?". This has nothing
> to do with paravirt in particular. How about just deleting that code?
> It seems pointless. Sure, it's the responsibility of the real root
> kernel, but nothing will break if a guest kernel also does the fixup.

Likewise. This is avoiding the foof workaround on PV guests as the
hypervisor would have done that itself. Also I was told by Konrad
at the last Xen Developer summit that it seems like we might even
be able to remove the foof workaround from upstream, but this was
just speculation. We could not confirm it.

If we need it I think I can address this with my work.

> int __init microcode_init(void)
> {
> [...]
> if (paravirt_enabled() || dis_ucode_ldr)
> return -EINVAL;
>
>
> This is also asking "are we the natively booted kernel?" This is
> plausibly useful for real. (Borislav, is this actually necessary?)
> Seems to me there should be a function is_native_root_kernel() or
> similar. Obviously it could have false positives and code will have
> to deal with that. (This also could be entirely wrong. What code is
> responsible for CPU microcode updates on Xen? For all I know, dom0 is
> *supposed* to apply microcode updates, in which case that check really
> should be deleted.

Likewise. I can remove it but it sounds like others can remove it
through other means as replied to this thread.

> void __init reserve_ebda_region(void)
> {
> [...]
> if (paravirt_enabled())
> return;
>
> I don't know what the point of this one is.
>
> pnpbios turns itself off if paravirt_enabled(). I'm not convinced
> that's correct.

Either way my set of patches address this by relying on the subarch.

> /* only a natively booted kernel should be using TXT */
> if (paravirt_enabled()) {
> pr_warning("non-0 tboot_addr but pv_ops is enabled\n");
> return;
> }
>
> Er, what's wrong with trying to talk to tboot on paravirt? It won't
> be there unless something is rather wrong. In any case, this could
> use is_native_root_kernel().

If really needed likewise, I think the subarch can be used...

>
> if (paravirt_enabled() && !paravirt_has(RTC))
> return -ENODEV;
>
> This actually seems legit. But how about reversing it: if
> paravirt_has(NO_RTC) return -ENODEV? Problem solved.

I actually want to remove paravirt_has(NO_RTC), it turns out
that only lguest needs to avoid this, then we not only remove
paravirt_has(NO_RTC) but the RTF flag and the features paravirt
crap. I am pretty sure I can remove this by just relying on
the subarch, LGUEST would just not opt-in for this.

> paravirt_enabled is also used in entry_32.S:
>
> cmpl $0, pv_info+PARAVIRT_enabled
>
> This is actually trying to check whether pv_cpu_ops.iret ==
> native_iret. I sincerely hope that no additional support is *ever*
> added to x86 Linux for systems on which this is not the case.

Not sure yet as this is early code and that's where I'm having issues,
and its why I've been asking for a simple x86 hypervisr type and seeing
if we can just access it in really early code.

> So yeah, I think the right solution is to delete paravirt_enabled.

Lets do it. Given this is all work we all seem to agree I can just
drop this rename for now, and the other 2 patches can be merged
for now (or ignored, let me know, and then we can just drop things
as we go forward with either the subarch for Xen being set and used
with the linker table stuff, and/or with the other alternatives that
are being discussed so far on this thread by others.

As noted though, we still need the HVMLite paravirt_enabled() thing
sorted out, if we drop it, will HVMLite have a way to ensure it
also gets a bail on the same routines?

Luis

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-02-09 08:01    [W:0.201 / U:8.164 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site