[lkml]   [2019]   [Jun]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [Xen-devel] [RFC PATCH 04/16] x86/xen: hypercall support for xenhost_t
On 2019-06-12 2:15 p.m., Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 09/05/2019 18:25, Ankur Arora wrote:
>> Allow for different hypercall implementations for different xenhost types.
>> Nested xenhost, which has two underlying xenhosts, can use both
>> simultaneously.
>> The hypercall macros (HYPERVISOR_*) implicitly use the default xenhost.x
>> A new macro (hypervisor_*) takes xenhost_t * as a parameter and does the
>> right thing.
>> TODO:
>> - Multicalls for now assume the default xenhost
>> - xen_hypercall_* symbols are only generated for the default xenhost.
>> Signed-off-by: Ankur Arora <>
> Again, what is the hypervisor nesting and/or guest layout here?
Two hypervisors, L0 and L1, and the guest is a child of the L1
hypervisor but could have PV devices attached to both L0 and L1

> I can't think of any case where a single piece of software can
> legitimately have two hypercall pages, because if it has one working
> one, it is by definition a guest, and therefore not privileged enough to
> use the outer one.
Depending on which hypercall page is used, the hypercall would
(eventually) land in the corresponding hypervisor.

Juergen elsewhere pointed out proxying hypercalls is a better approach,
so I'm not really considering this any more but, given this layout, and
assuming that the hypercall pages could be encoded differently would it
still not work?


> ~Andrew
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list

 \ /
  Last update: 2019-06-14 09:21    [W:0.061 / U:6.872 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site