On 27/01/16 14:42, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 08:54:56PM -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> On Jan 26, 2016 6:16 PM, "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcg...@suse.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcg...@suse.com> >> wrote: >>>> You go: >>>> >>>> hvmlite_start_xen() --> >>>> HVM stub >>>> startup_64() | (startup_32() >>> >>> Hrm, does HVMlite work well with load_ucode_bsp(), note the patches to >>> rebrand pv_enabled() to pv_legacy() or whatever, this PV type will not >>> be legacy or crap / old, so we'd need a way to catch it if we should >>> not use that code for this PV type. This begs the question, are you >>> also sure other callers in startup_32() or startup_64() might be OK as >>> well where previously guarded with pv_enabled() ? >> >> Actually this call can't be used, and if early code used it prior to >> setup_arch() it'd be a bug as its only properly set until later. Vetting >> for correctness of all code call is still required though and perhaps we do >> need something to catch now this PV type on early code such as this one if >> we don't want it. From what I've gathered before on other bsp ucode we >> don't want ucode loaded for PV guest types through these mechanisms. > > It may help to not think of PVH/hvmlite as PV. It really is HVM with a lot > of emulated devices removed. > > How does early microcode work on EFI? Does the EFI stub code have an early > microcode loading code ?
Surely the interesting comparison here is how is (early) microcode loading disabled in KVM guests? We should use the same mechanism for HVMlite guests. David
