On Wed, May 07 2014 at 11:10:56 am BST, Peter Maydell
<peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 7 May 2014 10:52, Marc Zyngier <marc.zyng...@arm.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, May 07 2014 at 10:34:30 am BST, Peter Maydell
>> <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote:
>>> Current opinion on the qemu-devel thread seems to be that we
>>> should just define that the endianness of the virtio device is
>>> the endianness of the guest kernel at the point where the guest
>>> triggers a reset of the virtio device by writing zero the QueuePFN
>>> or Status registers.
>>
>> On AArch32, we only have the CPSR.E bit to select the endiannes. Are we
>> going to simply explode if the access comes from userspace?
>
> There's SCTLR.EE in AArch32, right?
Indeed, good point.
>> On AArch64, we can either select the kernel endianness, or userspace
>> endianness. Are we going to go a different route just for the sake of
>> enforcing kernel access?
>>
>> I'm inclined to think of userspace access as a valid use case.
>
> I don't actually care much about the details of what we decide; I just
> want us to be consistent between QEMU and kvmtool and (to the extent
> that architectural differences permit) consistent between PPC and
> ARM. At the moment we seem to be heading in gratuitously different
> directions.
My point is: is there any good technical reason for deciding not to
support guest user space access, other than religious matters about the
latest incarnation of The Holy Virtio Spec?
Thanks,
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
