Re: [PATCH 1/7] Nested VMX patch 1 implements vmon and vmoff

2009-12-21 Thread Muli Ben-Yehuda
On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 09:04:49PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote: Since VMX was not originally designed to be nested that wouldn't surprise me. vmx was designed to correct the non-virtualizability of x86. It would have been criminal to design it without nesting in mind, especially given all the

Re: [PATCH 1/7] Nested VMX patch 1 implements vmon and vmoff

2009-12-21 Thread Avi Kivity
On 12/21/2009 05:52 PM, Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote: I would say that VMX only supports nesting if you define supports as does not make it impossible. The fact that VMX operations in executed in non-root mode are trapped is welcome, but there's so much more that could be done in hardware to make

Re: [PATCH 1/7] Nested VMX patch 1 implements vmon and vmoff

2009-12-20 Thread Gleb Natapov
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 08:38:23PM +0200, or...@il.ibm.com wrote: From: Orit Wasserman or...@il.ibm.com --- arch/x86/kvm/svm.c |3 - arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c | 265 +++- arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 11 ++- arch/x86/kvm/x86.h |2 + 4 files

Re: [PATCH 1/7] Nested VMX patch 1 implements vmon and vmoff

2009-12-20 Thread Avi Kivity
On 12/20/2009 04:20 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote: + + if (create_l1_state(vcpu)) { + printk(KERN_ERR %s create_l1_state failed\n, __func__); + kvm_queue_exception(vcpu, UD_VECTOR); Should we send UD exception if there is internal error? May be doing

Re: [PATCH 1/7] Nested VMX patch 1 implements vmon and vmoff

2009-12-20 Thread Gleb Natapov
On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 04:23:38PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote: On 12/20/2009 04:20 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote: + + if (create_l1_state(vcpu)) { + printk(KERN_ERR %s create_l1_state failed\n, __func__); + kvm_queue_exception(vcpu, UD_VECTOR); Should we send UD exception if

Re: [PATCH 1/7] Nested VMX patch 1 implements vmon and vmoff

2009-12-20 Thread Andi Kleen
Gleb Natapov g...@redhat.com writes: +int nested = 1; +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(nested); Unless this is a lot better tested and audited wouldn't it make more sense to default it to off? I don't think it's a big burden to let users set a special knob for this, but it would be a big problem if there

Re: [PATCH 1/7] Nested VMX patch 1 implements vmon and vmoff

2009-12-20 Thread Avi Kivity
On 12/20/2009 07:08 PM, Andi Kleen wrote: Gleb Natapovg...@redhat.com writes: +int nested = 1; +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(nested); Unless this is a lot better tested and audited wouldn't it make more sense to default it to off? This is actually a move of an existing svm-only

Re: [PATCH 1/7] Nested VMX patch 1 implements vmon and vmoff

2009-12-16 Thread Avi Kivity
On 12/10/2009 08:38 PM, or...@il.ibm.com wrote: From: Orit Wassermanor...@il.ibm.com Missing changelog entry. Please use the format common to all kvm patches. diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/svm.c b/arch/x86/kvm/svm.c index 3de0b37..3f63cdd 100644 --- a/arch/x86/kvm/svm.c +++

[PATCH 1/7] Nested VMX patch 1 implements vmon and vmoff

2009-12-10 Thread oritw
From: Orit Wasserman or...@il.ibm.com --- arch/x86/kvm/svm.c |3 - arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c | 265 +++- arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 11 ++- arch/x86/kvm/x86.h |2 + 4 files changed, 274 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/svm.c