On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 07:14:24AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 12.11.18 at 17:16, <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote: > > Currently, a number of options passed for domain creation are ignored, or > > have > > implicit fallback behaviour. This is bad for forwards compatibility, and > > for > > end users to be certain that they got the configuration they asked for. > > > > With this change: > > * ARM now strictly requires that XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_hap is passed. Previously, > > only XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_hvm_guest was checked. > > * For x86, requesting HAP without HVM is now prohibited, as the combination > > makes no sense. > > * For x86, requesting HAP on a non-HAP capable system will fail, rather > > than > > silently fall back to Shadow. > > > > Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> > > --- > > CC: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> > > CC: Wei Liu <wei.l...@citrix.com> > > CC: Stefano Stabellini <sstabell...@kernel.org> > > CC: Julien Grall <julien.gr...@arm.com> > > CC: Ian Jackson <ian.jack...@citrix.com> > > CC: Wei Liu <wei.l...@citrix.com> > > > > Semi RFC because this may cause a user-visible change in behaviour. > > However, > > if the user has gone to the effort of specifying hap=1, silently falling > > back > > to shadow is unexpected, and IMO, a bug. > > My view on this to a fair part depends on whether the tool stack > would guard us from actually getting into such a situation in the > hypervisor. Getting an unspecific -EINVAL back without further > help towards diagnosis by the tool stack would make such a > change undesirable imo.
If you want toolstack to tell you what goes wrong, this sanitisation function should be shared with the toolstack, and presumably with some if __XEN_TOOLS__ trickeries to return / print out the culprit. Wei. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
