Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] x86/xen: support booting PVH guest via standard boot
 path
To:     Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        x86@kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
References: <20171108090739.26491-1-jgross@suse.com>
 <875b3992-c797-b109-6eb2-819e52811eca@oracle.com>
 <0d04d8cd-41e6-31bd-f5e6-8d1f6fd60efb@suse.com>
Cc:     tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com,
        pbonzini@redhat.com, rkrcmar@redhat.com, rjw@rjwysocki.net,
        len.brown@intel.com, pavel@ucw.cz
From:   Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <335b8767-dae8-8f85-fbe5-3f10a1af52c8@oracle.com>
Date:   Wed, 8 Nov 2017 08:47:54 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <0d04d8cd-41e6-31bd-f5e6-8d1f6fd60efb@suse.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 11/08/2017 08:40 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 08/11/17 14:37, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>> On 11/08/2017 04:07 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>> Booting a Xen PVH guest requires a special boot entry as it is
>>> mandatory to setup some Xen-specific interfaces rather early. When grub
>>> or OVMF are used as boot loaders, however, those will fill the boot
>>> parameters in zeropage and there is no longer a need to do something
>>> PVH specific in the early boot path.
>>>
>>> This patch series adds support for that scenario by identifying PVH
>>> environment and doing the required init steps via Xen hooks instead of
>>> using a dedicated boot entry.
>>>
>>> The dedicated entry is still needed for support of Dom0 running in PVH
>>> mode as in this case there is no grub or OVMF involved for filling in
>>> the boot parameters.
>> We are going to continue supporting direct boot of unprivileged guests
>> too so this entry point will be needed not for dom0 only.
> Sure, but using e.g. grub in this case would be an alternative. For Dom0
> this alternative isn't existing. So this entry is mandatory, not a "nice
> to have".

Right, I was just pointing out that the way the message is phrased makes
it sounds (to me at least) as if dom0 is the only reason for the
dedicated entry point.

-boris

From 1583505486231353884@xxx Wed Nov 08 13:41:52 +0000 2017
X-GM-THRID: 1583488333263511437
X-Gmail-Labels: Inbox,Category Forums,HistoricalUnread