On 07/03/2025 2:55 pm, Jason Andryuk wrote: > On 2025-03-06 17:39, Andrew Cooper wrote: >> Second, you've created a case where we can make multiple hardware >> domains, yet it is very much a singleton object from Xen's point of >> view. > > hardware_domain still remains the check for is_hardware_domain(), so > it's still a singleton.
Multiple domains can pass in CDF_hardware and latest-takes-precedence for hardware_domain. That only exists because late_hwdom is a bodge and relies on stealing. > A later ARM patch for the dom0less code adds a panic() if the device > tree defines a second hardware domains. Another option might be to strip out late_hwdom, and do this more nicely. I have little confidence that it works, seeing as it only gets touched to fix build issues. Either way, I think the common code wants to be ultimately responsible for refusing to create multiple hardware domains. > >> But, by the end, I think we do need to have reasonable confidence that >> only a single domain can be constructed as the hardware domain. > > What do you think about multiple control/privileged domains? Well, I am the author of https://github.com/xenserver/xen.pg/blob/XS-8.2.x/patches/xen-domctl-set-privileged-domain.patch and this is deployed in production for XenServer+HVMI. "Works on my hypervisor". ~Andrew
