Patches for stable

Patches for stable

[Juergen Gross]

Please add the patches:

commit 038bac2b02989acf1fc938cedcb7944c02672b9f upstream
commit dfc9327ab7c99bc13e12106448615efba833886b upstream
commit b17d9d1df3c33a4f1d2bf397e2257aecf9dc56d4 upstream

to the 4.15 and 4.16 stable kernels.

Those patches are needed to boot Linux as PVH guest on recent Xen.
In PVH mode there is no guarantee the kernel can find the RSDP table
at the legacy location in low memory, which is a requirement for the
kernel to boot successful without those patches.

For kernel 4.14 I'll send a slightly modified version of the patches
soon.


Juergen

Re: Patches for stable

[Greg KH]

On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 12:38:43PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> Please add the patches:
> 
> commit 038bac2b02989acf1fc938cedcb7944c02672b9f upstream
> commit dfc9327ab7c99bc13e12106448615efba833886b upstream
> commit b17d9d1df3c33a4f1d2bf397e2257aecf9dc56d4 upstream
> 
> to the 4.15 and 4.16 stable kernels.
> 
> Those patches are needed to boot Linux as PVH guest on recent Xen.

So a new feature?  Why is that ok for stable kernels?

> In PVH mode there is no guarantee the kernel can find the RSDP table
> at the legacy location in low memory, which is a requirement for the
> kernel to boot successful without those patches.

Why not just use newer kernels for new Xen features?  This really
doesn't look like a bugfix to me, does it to you?

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: Patches for stable

[Greg KH]

On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 12:38:43PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> Please add the patches:
> 
> commit 038bac2b02989acf1fc938cedcb7944c02672b9f upstream
> commit dfc9327ab7c99bc13e12106448615efba833886b upstream
> commit b17d9d1df3c33a4f1d2bf397e2257aecf9dc56d4 upstream
> 
> to the 4.15 and 4.16 stable kernels.
> 
> Those patches are needed to boot Linux as PVH guest on recent Xen.

So a new feature?  Why is that ok for stable kernels?

> In PVH mode there is no guarantee the kernel can find the RSDP table
> at the legacy location in low memory, which is a requirement for the
> kernel to boot successful without those patches.

Why not just use newer kernels for new Xen features?  This really
doesn't look like a bugfix to me, does it to you?

thanks,

greg k-h

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Re: Patches for stable

[Juergen Gross]

On 04/04/18 16:27, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 12:38:43PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> Please add the patches:
>>
>> commit 038bac2b02989acf1fc938cedcb7944c02672b9f upstream
>> commit dfc9327ab7c99bc13e12106448615efba833886b upstream
>> commit b17d9d1df3c33a4f1d2bf397e2257aecf9dc56d4 upstream
>>
>> to the 4.15 and 4.16 stable kernels.
>>
>> Those patches are needed to boot Linux as PVH guest on recent Xen.
> 
> So a new feature?  Why is that ok for stable kernels?

It works for kernels since at least 4.11 on Xen 4.10.

> 
>> In PVH mode there is no guarantee the kernel can find the RSDP table
>> at the legacy location in low memory, which is a requirement for the
>> kernel to boot successful without those patches.
> 
> Why not just use newer kernels for new Xen features?  This really
> doesn't look like a bugfix to me, does it to you?

It does. A working setup will no longer work if Xen version is upgraded
to 4.11.


Juergen

Re: Patches for stable

[Juergen Gross]

On 04/04/18 16:27, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 12:38:43PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> Please add the patches:
>>
>> commit 038bac2b02989acf1fc938cedcb7944c02672b9f upstream
>> commit dfc9327ab7c99bc13e12106448615efba833886b upstream
>> commit b17d9d1df3c33a4f1d2bf397e2257aecf9dc56d4 upstream
>>
>> to the 4.15 and 4.16 stable kernels.
>>
>> Those patches are needed to boot Linux as PVH guest on recent Xen.
> 
> So a new feature?  Why is that ok for stable kernels?

It works for kernels since at least 4.11 on Xen 4.10.

> 
>> In PVH mode there is no guarantee the kernel can find the RSDP table
>> at the legacy location in low memory, which is a requirement for the
>> kernel to boot successful without those patches.
> 
> Why not just use newer kernels for new Xen features?  This really
> doesn't look like a bugfix to me, does it to you?

It does. A working setup will no longer work if Xen version is upgraded
to 4.11.


Juergen

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Re: Patches for stable

[Greg KH]

On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 04:30:30PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 04/04/18 16:27, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 12:38:43PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> >> Please add the patches:
> >>
> >> commit 038bac2b02989acf1fc938cedcb7944c02672b9f upstream
> >> commit dfc9327ab7c99bc13e12106448615efba833886b upstream
> >> commit b17d9d1df3c33a4f1d2bf397e2257aecf9dc56d4 upstream
> >>
> >> to the 4.15 and 4.16 stable kernels.
> >>
> >> Those patches are needed to boot Linux as PVH guest on recent Xen.
> > 
> > So a new feature?  Why is that ok for stable kernels?
> 
> It works for kernels since at least 4.11 on Xen 4.10.

Great, so what commit caused this to fail?

So far, in reading those commits, it sounds like they are "make Linux
work again due to changes in Xen".  That sounds like a pretty bad thing
that Xen did, why do we have to fix up their mess?

> >> In PVH mode there is no guarantee the kernel can find the RSDP table
> >> at the legacy location in low memory, which is a requirement for the
> >> kernel to boot successful without those patches.
> > 
> > Why not just use newer kernels for new Xen features?  This really
> > doesn't look like a bugfix to me, does it to you?
> 
> It does. A working setup will no longer work if Xen version is upgraded
> to 4.11.

Why isn't this a regression in Xen that they fix?  Why are we
responsible for adding new kernel features to work on newer versions of
Xen and backport them to older kernels?

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: Patches for stable

[Greg KH]

On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 04:30:30PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 04/04/18 16:27, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 12:38:43PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> >> Please add the patches:
> >>
> >> commit 038bac2b02989acf1fc938cedcb7944c02672b9f upstream
> >> commit dfc9327ab7c99bc13e12106448615efba833886b upstream
> >> commit b17d9d1df3c33a4f1d2bf397e2257aecf9dc56d4 upstream
> >>
> >> to the 4.15 and 4.16 stable kernels.
> >>
> >> Those patches are needed to boot Linux as PVH guest on recent Xen.
> > 
> > So a new feature?  Why is that ok for stable kernels?
> 
> It works for kernels since at least 4.11 on Xen 4.10.

Great, so what commit caused this to fail?

So far, in reading those commits, it sounds like they are "make Linux
work again due to changes in Xen".  That sounds like a pretty bad thing
that Xen did, why do we have to fix up their mess?

> >> In PVH mode there is no guarantee the kernel can find the RSDP table
> >> at the legacy location in low memory, which is a requirement for the
> >> kernel to boot successful without those patches.
> > 
> > Why not just use newer kernels for new Xen features?  This really
> > doesn't look like a bugfix to me, does it to you?
> 
> It does. A working setup will no longer work if Xen version is upgraded
> to 4.11.

Why isn't this a regression in Xen that they fix?  Why are we
responsible for adding new kernel features to work on newer versions of
Xen and backport them to older kernels?

thanks,

greg k-h

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Re: Patches for stable

[Juergen Gross]

On 04/04/18 16:46, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 04:30:30PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> On 04/04/18 16:27, Greg KH wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 12:38:43PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>> Please add the patches:
>>>>
>>>> commit 038bac2b02989acf1fc938cedcb7944c02672b9f upstream
>>>> commit dfc9327ab7c99bc13e12106448615efba833886b upstream
>>>> commit b17d9d1df3c33a4f1d2bf397e2257aecf9dc56d4 upstream
>>>>
>>>> to the 4.15 and 4.16 stable kernels.
>>>>
>>>> Those patches are needed to boot Linux as PVH guest on recent Xen.
>>>
>>> So a new feature?  Why is that ok for stable kernels?
>>
>> It works for kernels since at least 4.11 on Xen 4.10.
> 
> Great, so what commit caused this to fail?
> 
> So far, in reading those commits, it sounds like they are "make Linux
> work again due to changes in Xen".  That sounds like a pretty bad thing
> that Xen did, why do we have to fix up their mess?

Xen did nothing bad. It was the "old" kernel implementation which relied
on an assumption which happened to be true by accident. Xen had to be
changed in order to enable grub2 to support PVH mode.

The PVH interface specifies that the RSDP address is available via the
start_info structure handed over to the PVH boot entry. The Linux kernel
didn't look at that address, but used the legacy method scanning low
memory for the RSDP table. As soon as Xen moved the RSDP to a higher
address (which is covered by the PVH interface specification) the kernel
could no longer be booted.

So it was clearly a fault of the kernel not complying to the PVH
specification.

> 
>>>> In PVH mode there is no guarantee the kernel can find the RSDP table
>>>> at the legacy location in low memory, which is a requirement for the
>>>> kernel to boot successful without those patches.
>>>
>>> Why not just use newer kernels for new Xen features?  This really
>>> doesn't look like a bugfix to me, does it to you?
>>
>> It does. A working setup will no longer work if Xen version is upgraded
>> to 4.11.
> 
> Why isn't this a regression in Xen that they fix?  Why are we
> responsible for adding new kernel features to work on newer versions of
> Xen and backport them to older kernels?

In case a Linux user program relies on undocumented behavior of the
kernel (e.g. a register being non-zero on return from a syscall), does
the kernel have to support that behavior eternally? I don't think so.
This is a similar case.


Juergen

Re: Patches for stable

[Juergen Gross]

On 04/04/18 16:46, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 04:30:30PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> On 04/04/18 16:27, Greg KH wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 12:38:43PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>> Please add the patches:
>>>>
>>>> commit 038bac2b02989acf1fc938cedcb7944c02672b9f upstream
>>>> commit dfc9327ab7c99bc13e12106448615efba833886b upstream
>>>> commit b17d9d1df3c33a4f1d2bf397e2257aecf9dc56d4 upstream
>>>>
>>>> to the 4.15 and 4.16 stable kernels.
>>>>
>>>> Those patches are needed to boot Linux as PVH guest on recent Xen.
>>>
>>> So a new feature?  Why is that ok for stable kernels?
>>
>> It works for kernels since at least 4.11 on Xen 4.10.
> 
> Great, so what commit caused this to fail?
> 
> So far, in reading those commits, it sounds like they are "make Linux
> work again due to changes in Xen".  That sounds like a pretty bad thing
> that Xen did, why do we have to fix up their mess?

Xen did nothing bad. It was the "old" kernel implementation which relied
on an assumption which happened to be true by accident. Xen had to be
changed in order to enable grub2 to support PVH mode.

The PVH interface specifies that the RSDP address is available via the
start_info structure handed over to the PVH boot entry. The Linux kernel
didn't look at that address, but used the legacy method scanning low
memory for the RSDP table. As soon as Xen moved the RSDP to a higher
address (which is covered by the PVH interface specification) the kernel
could no longer be booted.

So it was clearly a fault of the kernel not complying to the PVH
specification.

> 
>>>> In PVH mode there is no guarantee the kernel can find the RSDP table
>>>> at the legacy location in low memory, which is a requirement for the
>>>> kernel to boot successful without those patches.
>>>
>>> Why not just use newer kernels for new Xen features?  This really
>>> doesn't look like a bugfix to me, does it to you?
>>
>> It does. A working setup will no longer work if Xen version is upgraded
>> to 4.11.
> 
> Why isn't this a regression in Xen that they fix?  Why are we
> responsible for adding new kernel features to work on newer versions of
> Xen and backport them to older kernels?

In case a Linux user program relies on undocumented behavior of the
kernel (e.g. a register being non-zero on return from a syscall), does
the kernel have to support that behavior eternally? I don't think so.
This is a similar case.


Juergen

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Re: Patches for stable

[Greg KH]

On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 05:12:32PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 04/04/18 16:46, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 04:30:30PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> >> On 04/04/18 16:27, Greg KH wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 12:38:43PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> >>>> Please add the patches:
> >>>>
> >>>> commit 038bac2b02989acf1fc938cedcb7944c02672b9f upstream
> >>>> commit dfc9327ab7c99bc13e12106448615efba833886b upstream
> >>>> commit b17d9d1df3c33a4f1d2bf397e2257aecf9dc56d4 upstream
> >>>>
> >>>> to the 4.15 and 4.16 stable kernels.
> >>>>
> >>>> Those patches are needed to boot Linux as PVH guest on recent Xen.
> >>>
> >>> So a new feature?  Why is that ok for stable kernels?
> >>
> >> It works for kernels since at least 4.11 on Xen 4.10.
> > 
> > Great, so what commit caused this to fail?
> > 
> > So far, in reading those commits, it sounds like they are "make Linux
> > work again due to changes in Xen".  That sounds like a pretty bad thing
> > that Xen did, why do we have to fix up their mess?
> 
> Xen did nothing bad. It was the "old" kernel implementation which relied
> on an assumption which happened to be true by accident. Xen had to be
> changed in order to enable grub2 to support PVH mode.
> 
> The PVH interface specifies that the RSDP address is available via the
> start_info structure handed over to the PVH boot entry. The Linux kernel
> didn't look at that address, but used the legacy method scanning low
> memory for the RSDP table. As soon as Xen moved the RSDP to a higher
> address (which is covered by the PVH interface specification) the kernel
> could no longer be booted.
> 
> So it was clearly a fault of the kernel not complying to the PVH
> specification.

But it worked previously, so you can't fault Linux here :)

How many other operating systems broke with this change?

> >>>> In PVH mode there is no guarantee the kernel can find the RSDP table
> >>>> at the legacy location in low memory, which is a requirement for the
> >>>> kernel to boot successful without those patches.
> >>>
> >>> Why not just use newer kernels for new Xen features?  This really
> >>> doesn't look like a bugfix to me, does it to you?
> >>
> >> It does. A working setup will no longer work if Xen version is upgraded
> >> to 4.11.
> > 
> > Why isn't this a regression in Xen that they fix?  Why are we
> > responsible for adding new kernel features to work on newer versions of
> > Xen and backport them to older kernels?
> 
> In case a Linux user program relies on undocumented behavior of the
> kernel (e.g. a register being non-zero on return from a syscall), does
> the kernel have to support that behavior eternally? I don't think so.

Yes, the kernel does have to support it.  It's called "do not break
working systems", or as some like to call it, the "Cambridge Promise"
that we made to userspace well over a decade ago at a kernel summit in
Cambridge.

We do this all the time, sometimes going through great gyrations in
order to achieve it.  Or sometimes we just "wait it out" and delay 4+
years to make these types of changes to allow everyone to update their
userspace programs before we make a change like this.

It's part of the job of running a good software project by not breaking
user's systems.  I suggest that Xen also adopt this same behavior if
they want to keep a happy userbase.  Otherwise we can just tell everyone
to go use KVM :)

> This is a similar case.

Not at all.  We have a working kernel here.  Xen changed and broke
working Linux systems.  Now I understand the goal of wanting to also
change Linux to work properly, but these changes are really a new
feature addition if you read the patches.

So why can't Xen just tell all Linux users to update to a more modern
kernel, i.e. 4.17.y and newer, in order to run with the new Xen kernel
if they want to enforce this previously working behavior?  Why does
Linux have to be the one to change here?

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: Patches for stable

[Greg KH]

On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 05:12:32PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 04/04/18 16:46, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 04:30:30PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> >> On 04/04/18 16:27, Greg KH wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 12:38:43PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> >>>> Please add the patches:
> >>>>
> >>>> commit 038bac2b02989acf1fc938cedcb7944c02672b9f upstream
> >>>> commit dfc9327ab7c99bc13e12106448615efba833886b upstream
> >>>> commit b17d9d1df3c33a4f1d2bf397e2257aecf9dc56d4 upstream
> >>>>
> >>>> to the 4.15 and 4.16 stable kernels.
> >>>>
> >>>> Those patches are needed to boot Linux as PVH guest on recent Xen.
> >>>
> >>> So a new feature?  Why is that ok for stable kernels?
> >>
> >> It works for kernels since at least 4.11 on Xen 4.10.
> > 
> > Great, so what commit caused this to fail?
> > 
> > So far, in reading those commits, it sounds like they are "make Linux
> > work again due to changes in Xen".  That sounds like a pretty bad thing
> > that Xen did, why do we have to fix up their mess?
> 
> Xen did nothing bad. It was the "old" kernel implementation which relied
> on an assumption which happened to be true by accident. Xen had to be
> changed in order to enable grub2 to support PVH mode.
> 
> The PVH interface specifies that the RSDP address is available via the
> start_info structure handed over to the PVH boot entry. The Linux kernel
> didn't look at that address, but used the legacy method scanning low
> memory for the RSDP table. As soon as Xen moved the RSDP to a higher
> address (which is covered by the PVH interface specification) the kernel
> could no longer be booted.
> 
> So it was clearly a fault of the kernel not complying to the PVH
> specification.

But it worked previously, so you can't fault Linux here :)

How many other operating systems broke with this change?

> >>>> In PVH mode there is no guarantee the kernel can find the RSDP table
> >>>> at the legacy location in low memory, which is a requirement for the
> >>>> kernel to boot successful without those patches.
> >>>
> >>> Why not just use newer kernels for new Xen features?  This really
> >>> doesn't look like a bugfix to me, does it to you?
> >>
> >> It does. A working setup will no longer work if Xen version is upgraded
> >> to 4.11.
> > 
> > Why isn't this a regression in Xen that they fix?  Why are we
> > responsible for adding new kernel features to work on newer versions of
> > Xen and backport them to older kernels?
> 
> In case a Linux user program relies on undocumented behavior of the
> kernel (e.g. a register being non-zero on return from a syscall), does
> the kernel have to support that behavior eternally? I don't think so.

Yes, the kernel does have to support it.  It's called "do not break
working systems", or as some like to call it, the "Cambridge Promise"
that we made to userspace well over a decade ago at a kernel summit in
Cambridge.

We do this all the time, sometimes going through great gyrations in
order to achieve it.  Or sometimes we just "wait it out" and delay 4+
years to make these types of changes to allow everyone to update their
userspace programs before we make a change like this.

It's part of the job of running a good software project by not breaking
user's systems.  I suggest that Xen also adopt this same behavior if
they want to keep a happy userbase.  Otherwise we can just tell everyone
to go use KVM :)

> This is a similar case.

Not at all.  We have a working kernel here.  Xen changed and broke
working Linux systems.  Now I understand the goal of wanting to also
change Linux to work properly, but these changes are really a new
feature addition if you read the patches.

So why can't Xen just tell all Linux users to update to a more modern
kernel, i.e. 4.17.y and newer, in order to run with the new Xen kernel
if they want to enforce this previously working behavior?  Why does
Linux have to be the one to change here?

thanks,

greg k-h

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Re: Patches for stable

[Juergen Gross]

On 04/04/18 17:42, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 05:12:32PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> On 04/04/18 16:46, Greg KH wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 04:30:30PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>> On 04/04/18 16:27, Greg KH wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 12:38:43PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>>>> Please add the patches:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> commit 038bac2b02989acf1fc938cedcb7944c02672b9f upstream
>>>>>> commit dfc9327ab7c99bc13e12106448615efba833886b upstream
>>>>>> commit b17d9d1df3c33a4f1d2bf397e2257aecf9dc56d4 upstream
>>>>>>
>>>>>> to the 4.15 and 4.16 stable kernels.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Those patches are needed to boot Linux as PVH guest on recent Xen.
>>>>>
>>>>> So a new feature?  Why is that ok for stable kernels?
>>>>
>>>> It works for kernels since at least 4.11 on Xen 4.10.
>>>
>>> Great, so what commit caused this to fail?
>>>
>>> So far, in reading those commits, it sounds like they are "make Linux
>>> work again due to changes in Xen".  That sounds like a pretty bad thing
>>> that Xen did, why do we have to fix up their mess?
>>
>> Xen did nothing bad. It was the "old" kernel implementation which relied
>> on an assumption which happened to be true by accident. Xen had to be
>> changed in order to enable grub2 to support PVH mode.
>>
>> The PVH interface specifies that the RSDP address is available via the
>> start_info structure handed over to the PVH boot entry. The Linux kernel
>> didn't look at that address, but used the legacy method scanning low
>> memory for the RSDP table. As soon as Xen moved the RSDP to a higher
>> address (which is covered by the PVH interface specification) the kernel
>> could no longer be booted.
>>
>> So it was clearly a fault of the kernel not complying to the PVH
>> specification.
> 
> But it worked previously, so you can't fault Linux here :)
> 
> How many other operating systems broke with this change?

None.

BSD did it correctly. I guess Mini-OS doesn't count, as it is mostly
Xen-internal, but it was not hit by this change.

> Not at all.  We have a working kernel here.  Xen changed and broke
> working Linux systems.  Now I understand the goal of wanting to also
> change Linux to work properly, but these changes are really a new
> feature addition if you read the patches.

We have a working kernel just by luck. Would your reasoning be the same
if the kernel would use an EFI runtime service wrong and an EFI update
would lead to a crash?

> So why can't Xen just tell all Linux users to update to a more modern
> kernel, i.e. 4.17.y and newer, in order to run with the new Xen kernel
> if they want to enforce this previously working behavior?  Why does
> Linux have to be the one to change here?

I wanted to have those patches in 4.15, but problems with grub2 (not the
upstream version, but multiple distro versions) and the Meltdown/Spectre
desaster pushed them back to 4.17.


Juergen

Re: Patches for stable

[Juergen Gross]

On 04/04/18 17:42, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 05:12:32PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> On 04/04/18 16:46, Greg KH wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 04:30:30PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>> On 04/04/18 16:27, Greg KH wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 12:38:43PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>>>> Please add the patches:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> commit 038bac2b02989acf1fc938cedcb7944c02672b9f upstream
>>>>>> commit dfc9327ab7c99bc13e12106448615efba833886b upstream
>>>>>> commit b17d9d1df3c33a4f1d2bf397e2257aecf9dc56d4 upstream
>>>>>>
>>>>>> to the 4.15 and 4.16 stable kernels.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Those patches are needed to boot Linux as PVH guest on recent Xen.
>>>>>
>>>>> So a new feature?  Why is that ok for stable kernels?
>>>>
>>>> It works for kernels since at least 4.11 on Xen 4.10.
>>>
>>> Great, so what commit caused this to fail?
>>>
>>> So far, in reading those commits, it sounds like they are "make Linux
>>> work again due to changes in Xen".  That sounds like a pretty bad thing
>>> that Xen did, why do we have to fix up their mess?
>>
>> Xen did nothing bad. It was the "old" kernel implementation which relied
>> on an assumption which happened to be true by accident. Xen had to be
>> changed in order to enable grub2 to support PVH mode.
>>
>> The PVH interface specifies that the RSDP address is available via the
>> start_info structure handed over to the PVH boot entry. The Linux kernel
>> didn't look at that address, but used the legacy method scanning low
>> memory for the RSDP table. As soon as Xen moved the RSDP to a higher
>> address (which is covered by the PVH interface specification) the kernel
>> could no longer be booted.
>>
>> So it was clearly a fault of the kernel not complying to the PVH
>> specification.
> 
> But it worked previously, so you can't fault Linux here :)
> 
> How many other operating systems broke with this change?

None.

BSD did it correctly. I guess Mini-OS doesn't count, as it is mostly
Xen-internal, but it was not hit by this change.

> Not at all.  We have a working kernel here.  Xen changed and broke
> working Linux systems.  Now I understand the goal of wanting to also
> change Linux to work properly, but these changes are really a new
> feature addition if you read the patches.

We have a working kernel just by luck. Would your reasoning be the same
if the kernel would use an EFI runtime service wrong and an EFI update
would lead to a crash?

> So why can't Xen just tell all Linux users to update to a more modern
> kernel, i.e. 4.17.y and newer, in order to run with the new Xen kernel
> if they want to enforce this previously working behavior?  Why does
> Linux have to be the one to change here?

I wanted to have those patches in 4.15, but problems with grub2 (not the
upstream version, but multiple distro versions) and the Meltdown/Spectre
desaster pushed them back to 4.17.


Juergen

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Re: Patches for stable

[Greg KH]

On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 06:32:17PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 04/04/18 17:42, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 05:12:32PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> >> On 04/04/18 16:46, Greg KH wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 04:30:30PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> >>>> On 04/04/18 16:27, Greg KH wrote:
> >>>>> On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 12:38:43PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> >>>>>> Please add the patches:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> commit 038bac2b02989acf1fc938cedcb7944c02672b9f upstream
> >>>>>> commit dfc9327ab7c99bc13e12106448615efba833886b upstream
> >>>>>> commit b17d9d1df3c33a4f1d2bf397e2257aecf9dc56d4 upstream
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> to the 4.15 and 4.16 stable kernels.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Those patches are needed to boot Linux as PVH guest on recent Xen.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So a new feature?  Why is that ok for stable kernels?
> >>>>
> >>>> It works for kernels since at least 4.11 on Xen 4.10.
> >>>
> >>> Great, so what commit caused this to fail?
> >>>
> >>> So far, in reading those commits, it sounds like they are "make Linux
> >>> work again due to changes in Xen".  That sounds like a pretty bad thing
> >>> that Xen did, why do we have to fix up their mess?
> >>
> >> Xen did nothing bad. It was the "old" kernel implementation which relied
> >> on an assumption which happened to be true by accident. Xen had to be
> >> changed in order to enable grub2 to support PVH mode.
> >>
> >> The PVH interface specifies that the RSDP address is available via the
> >> start_info structure handed over to the PVH boot entry. The Linux kernel
> >> didn't look at that address, but used the legacy method scanning low
> >> memory for the RSDP table. As soon as Xen moved the RSDP to a higher
> >> address (which is covered by the PVH interface specification) the kernel
> >> could no longer be booted.
> >>
> >> So it was clearly a fault of the kernel not complying to the PVH
> >> specification.
> > 
> > But it worked previously, so you can't fault Linux here :)
> > 
> > How many other operating systems broke with this change?
> 
> None.
> 
> BSD did it correctly. I guess Mini-OS doesn't count, as it is mostly
> Xen-internal, but it was not hit by this change.

Xen doesn't support anything other than BSD, Linux, and Mini-OS? :)

> > Not at all.  We have a working kernel here.  Xen changed and broke
> > working Linux systems.  Now I understand the goal of wanting to also
> > change Linux to work properly, but these changes are really a new
> > feature addition if you read the patches.
> 
> We have a working kernel just by luck. Would your reasoning be the same
> if the kernel would use an EFI runtime service wrong and an EFI update
> would lead to a crash?

If a UEFI/BIOS update broken working systems, first we would go yell at
the BIOS engineers for doing something foolish (like I am doing here...)
Then we would grumble and go fix the issue in the latest kernel version
and tell people to update to a new release and never buy from that
vendor ever again as they obviously do not care about their users.

So, I'll gladly tell everyone who hits this bug, to stop using Xen as
they don't care about their users, and to work around it they have to
use the 4.17 kernel release.

There, that was simple :)

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: Patches for stable

[Greg KH]

On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 06:32:17PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 04/04/18 17:42, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 05:12:32PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> >> On 04/04/18 16:46, Greg KH wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 04:30:30PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> >>>> On 04/04/18 16:27, Greg KH wrote:
> >>>>> On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 12:38:43PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> >>>>>> Please add the patches:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> commit 038bac2b02989acf1fc938cedcb7944c02672b9f upstream
> >>>>>> commit dfc9327ab7c99bc13e12106448615efba833886b upstream
> >>>>>> commit b17d9d1df3c33a4f1d2bf397e2257aecf9dc56d4 upstream
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> to the 4.15 and 4.16 stable kernels.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Those patches are needed to boot Linux as PVH guest on recent Xen.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So a new feature?  Why is that ok for stable kernels?
> >>>>
> >>>> It works for kernels since at least 4.11 on Xen 4.10.
> >>>
> >>> Great, so what commit caused this to fail?
> >>>
> >>> So far, in reading those commits, it sounds like they are "make Linux
> >>> work again due to changes in Xen".  That sounds like a pretty bad thing
> >>> that Xen did, why do we have to fix up their mess?
> >>
> >> Xen did nothing bad. It was the "old" kernel implementation which relied
> >> on an assumption which happened to be true by accident. Xen had to be
> >> changed in order to enable grub2 to support PVH mode.
> >>
> >> The PVH interface specifies that the RSDP address is available via the
> >> start_info structure handed over to the PVH boot entry. The Linux kernel
> >> didn't look at that address, but used the legacy method scanning low
> >> memory for the RSDP table. As soon as Xen moved the RSDP to a higher
> >> address (which is covered by the PVH interface specification) the kernel
> >> could no longer be booted.
> >>
> >> So it was clearly a fault of the kernel not complying to the PVH
> >> specification.
> > 
> > But it worked previously, so you can't fault Linux here :)
> > 
> > How many other operating systems broke with this change?
> 
> None.
> 
> BSD did it correctly. I guess Mini-OS doesn't count, as it is mostly
> Xen-internal, but it was not hit by this change.

Xen doesn't support anything other than BSD, Linux, and Mini-OS? :)

> > Not at all.  We have a working kernel here.  Xen changed and broke
> > working Linux systems.  Now I understand the goal of wanting to also
> > change Linux to work properly, but these changes are really a new
> > feature addition if you read the patches.
> 
> We have a working kernel just by luck. Would your reasoning be the same
> if the kernel would use an EFI runtime service wrong and an EFI update
> would lead to a crash?

If a UEFI/BIOS update broken working systems, first we would go yell at
the BIOS engineers for doing something foolish (like I am doing here...)
Then we would grumble and go fix the issue in the latest kernel version
and tell people to update to a new release and never buy from that
vendor ever again as they obviously do not care about their users.

So, I'll gladly tell everyone who hits this bug, to stop using Xen as
they don't care about their users, and to work around it they have to
use the 4.17 kernel release.

There, that was simple :)

thanks,

greg k-h

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Re: Patches for stable

[Juergen Gross]

On 05/04/18 08:33, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 06:32:17PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> On 04/04/18 17:42, Greg KH wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 05:12:32PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>> On 04/04/18 16:46, Greg KH wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 04:30:30PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>>>> On 04/04/18 16:27, Greg KH wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 12:38:43PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>>>>>> Please add the patches:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> commit 038bac2b02989acf1fc938cedcb7944c02672b9f upstream
>>>>>>>> commit dfc9327ab7c99bc13e12106448615efba833886b upstream
>>>>>>>> commit b17d9d1df3c33a4f1d2bf397e2257aecf9dc56d4 upstream
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> to the 4.15 and 4.16 stable kernels.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Those patches are needed to boot Linux as PVH guest on recent Xen.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So a new feature?  Why is that ok for stable kernels?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It works for kernels since at least 4.11 on Xen 4.10.
>>>>>
>>>>> Great, so what commit caused this to fail?
>>>>>
>>>>> So far, in reading those commits, it sounds like they are "make Linux
>>>>> work again due to changes in Xen".  That sounds like a pretty bad thing
>>>>> that Xen did, why do we have to fix up their mess?
>>>>
>>>> Xen did nothing bad. It was the "old" kernel implementation which relied
>>>> on an assumption which happened to be true by accident. Xen had to be
>>>> changed in order to enable grub2 to support PVH mode.
>>>>
>>>> The PVH interface specifies that the RSDP address is available via the
>>>> start_info structure handed over to the PVH boot entry. The Linux kernel
>>>> didn't look at that address, but used the legacy method scanning low
>>>> memory for the RSDP table. As soon as Xen moved the RSDP to a higher
>>>> address (which is covered by the PVH interface specification) the kernel
>>>> could no longer be booted.
>>>>
>>>> So it was clearly a fault of the kernel not complying to the PVH
>>>> specification.
>>>
>>> But it worked previously, so you can't fault Linux here :)
>>>
>>> How many other operating systems broke with this change?
>>
>> None.
>>
>> BSD did it correctly. I guess Mini-OS doesn't count, as it is mostly
>> Xen-internal, but it was not hit by this change.
> 
> Xen doesn't support anything other than BSD, Linux, and Mini-OS? :)

No other OS supports PVH mode so far.

>>> Not at all.  We have a working kernel here.  Xen changed and broke
>>> working Linux systems.  Now I understand the goal of wanting to also
>>> change Linux to work properly, but these changes are really a new
>>> feature addition if you read the patches.
>>
>> We have a working kernel just by luck. Would your reasoning be the same
>> if the kernel would use an EFI runtime service wrong and an EFI update
>> would lead to a crash?
> 
> If a UEFI/BIOS update broken working systems, first we would go yell at
> the BIOS engineers for doing something foolish (like I am doing here...)
> Then we would grumble and go fix the issue in the latest kernel version
> and tell people to update to a new release and never buy from that
> vendor ever again as they obviously do not care about their users.

Even if the kernel wasn't using the EFI interfaces correctly and just
worked by accident? Sorry, that's ridiculous.

> So, I'll gladly tell everyone who hits this bug, to stop using Xen as
> they don't care about their users, and to work around it they have to
> use the 4.17 kernel release.

The kernel is wrong here. You don't want to take the patches fixing the
issue. That's rather sad as PVH mode was meant to replace PV in the
future, which will remove the need for most of the paravirt ops stuff.
You are just shifting that possibility some months further into the
future.

I won't fight against you any longer.


Juergen

Re: Patches for stable

[Juergen Gross]

On 05/04/18 08:33, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 06:32:17PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> On 04/04/18 17:42, Greg KH wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 05:12:32PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>> On 04/04/18 16:46, Greg KH wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 04:30:30PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>>>> On 04/04/18 16:27, Greg KH wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 12:38:43PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>>>>>> Please add the patches:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> commit 038bac2b02989acf1fc938cedcb7944c02672b9f upstream
>>>>>>>> commit dfc9327ab7c99bc13e12106448615efba833886b upstream
>>>>>>>> commit b17d9d1df3c33a4f1d2bf397e2257aecf9dc56d4 upstream
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> to the 4.15 and 4.16 stable kernels.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Those patches are needed to boot Linux as PVH guest on recent Xen.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So a new feature?  Why is that ok for stable kernels?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It works for kernels since at least 4.11 on Xen 4.10.
>>>>>
>>>>> Great, so what commit caused this to fail?
>>>>>
>>>>> So far, in reading those commits, it sounds like they are "make Linux
>>>>> work again due to changes in Xen".  That sounds like a pretty bad thing
>>>>> that Xen did, why do we have to fix up their mess?
>>>>
>>>> Xen did nothing bad. It was the "old" kernel implementation which relied
>>>> on an assumption which happened to be true by accident. Xen had to be
>>>> changed in order to enable grub2 to support PVH mode.
>>>>
>>>> The PVH interface specifies that the RSDP address is available via the
>>>> start_info structure handed over to the PVH boot entry. The Linux kernel
>>>> didn't look at that address, but used the legacy method scanning low
>>>> memory for the RSDP table. As soon as Xen moved the RSDP to a higher
>>>> address (which is covered by the PVH interface specification) the kernel
>>>> could no longer be booted.
>>>>
>>>> So it was clearly a fault of the kernel not complying to the PVH
>>>> specification.
>>>
>>> But it worked previously, so you can't fault Linux here :)
>>>
>>> How many other operating systems broke with this change?
>>
>> None.
>>
>> BSD did it correctly. I guess Mini-OS doesn't count, as it is mostly
>> Xen-internal, but it was not hit by this change.
> 
> Xen doesn't support anything other than BSD, Linux, and Mini-OS? :)

No other OS supports PVH mode so far.

>>> Not at all.  We have a working kernel here.  Xen changed and broke
>>> working Linux systems.  Now I understand the goal of wanting to also
>>> change Linux to work properly, but these changes are really a new
>>> feature addition if you read the patches.
>>
>> We have a working kernel just by luck. Would your reasoning be the same
>> if the kernel would use an EFI runtime service wrong and an EFI update
>> would lead to a crash?
> 
> If a UEFI/BIOS update broken working systems, first we would go yell at
> the BIOS engineers for doing something foolish (like I am doing here...)
> Then we would grumble and go fix the issue in the latest kernel version
> and tell people to update to a new release and never buy from that
> vendor ever again as they obviously do not care about their users.

Even if the kernel wasn't using the EFI interfaces correctly and just
worked by accident? Sorry, that's ridiculous.

> So, I'll gladly tell everyone who hits this bug, to stop using Xen as
> they don't care about their users, and to work around it they have to
> use the 4.17 kernel release.

The kernel is wrong here. You don't want to take the patches fixing the
issue. That's rather sad as PVH mode was meant to replace PV in the
future, which will remove the need for most of the paravirt ops stuff.
You are just shifting that possibility some months further into the
future.

I won't fight against you any longer.


Juergen

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Re: Patches for stable

[Greg KH]

On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 09:02:27AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 05/04/18 08:33, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 06:32:17PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> >> On 04/04/18 17:42, Greg KH wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 05:12:32PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> >>>> On 04/04/18 16:46, Greg KH wrote:
> >>>>> On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 04:30:30PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> >>>>>> On 04/04/18 16:27, Greg KH wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 12:38:43PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Please add the patches:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> commit 038bac2b02989acf1fc938cedcb7944c02672b9f upstream
> >>>>>>>> commit dfc9327ab7c99bc13e12106448615efba833886b upstream
> >>>>>>>> commit b17d9d1df3c33a4f1d2bf397e2257aecf9dc56d4 upstream
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> to the 4.15 and 4.16 stable kernels.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Those patches are needed to boot Linux as PVH guest on recent Xen.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> So a new feature?  Why is that ok for stable kernels?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It works for kernels since at least 4.11 on Xen 4.10.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Great, so what commit caused this to fail?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So far, in reading those commits, it sounds like they are "make Linux
> >>>>> work again due to changes in Xen".  That sounds like a pretty bad thing
> >>>>> that Xen did, why do we have to fix up their mess?
> >>>>
> >>>> Xen did nothing bad. It was the "old" kernel implementation which relied
> >>>> on an assumption which happened to be true by accident. Xen had to be
> >>>> changed in order to enable grub2 to support PVH mode.
> >>>>
> >>>> The PVH interface specifies that the RSDP address is available via the
> >>>> start_info structure handed over to the PVH boot entry. The Linux kernel
> >>>> didn't look at that address, but used the legacy method scanning low
> >>>> memory for the RSDP table. As soon as Xen moved the RSDP to a higher
> >>>> address (which is covered by the PVH interface specification) the kernel
> >>>> could no longer be booted.
> >>>>
> >>>> So it was clearly a fault of the kernel not complying to the PVH
> >>>> specification.
> >>>
> >>> But it worked previously, so you can't fault Linux here :)
> >>>
> >>> How many other operating systems broke with this change?
> >>
> >> None.
> >>
> >> BSD did it correctly. I guess Mini-OS doesn't count, as it is mostly
> >> Xen-internal, but it was not hit by this change.
> > 
> > Xen doesn't support anything other than BSD, Linux, and Mini-OS? :)
> 
> No other OS supports PVH mode so far.
> 
> >>> Not at all.  We have a working kernel here.  Xen changed and broke
> >>> working Linux systems.  Now I understand the goal of wanting to also
> >>> change Linux to work properly, but these changes are really a new
> >>> feature addition if you read the patches.
> >>
> >> We have a working kernel just by luck. Would your reasoning be the same
> >> if the kernel would use an EFI runtime service wrong and an EFI update
> >> would lead to a crash?
> > 
> > If a UEFI/BIOS update broken working systems, first we would go yell at
> > the BIOS engineers for doing something foolish (like I am doing here...)
> > Then we would grumble and go fix the issue in the latest kernel version
> > and tell people to update to a new release and never buy from that
> > vendor ever again as they obviously do not care about their users.
> 
> Even if the kernel wasn't using the EFI interfaces correctly and just
> worked by accident? Sorry, that's ridiculous.
> 
> > So, I'll gladly tell everyone who hits this bug, to stop using Xen as
> > they don't care about their users, and to work around it they have to
> > use the 4.17 kernel release.
> 
> The kernel is wrong here. You don't want to take the patches fixing the
> issue.

These are not just "patches to fix the issue", they are "patches to add
new features" that touch core acpi bits, right?  Support for new
hardware and platforms and such are not normally part of the stable
kernel patches at all (with the exceptions of tiny patches that add
device ids and quirks.)

That's my main objection here, combined with the obvious one of "Xen
does not care about their users".

> That's rather sad as PVH mode was meant to replace PV in the
> future, which will remove the need for most of the paravirt ops stuff.
> You are just shifting that possibility some months further into the
> future.

So if you run in PV mode, all is fine, right?  Great, then just use 4.17
or newer for PVH, what's the issue?  Who cares about this for older
kernel versions, those are all in running systems that would not be
changing their version of Xen.

But again, I still claim that Xen doesn't care about their users by
breaking existing systems, no matter if Linux was wrong or not.  That's
just how the world is, Linux has to handle stupid userspace programs,
and Xen needs to handle stupid operating system kernels, if those
projects which to succeed over time.

Personally, I use KVM and now will strongly recommend others do the
same.

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: Patches for stable

[Greg KH]

On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 09:02:27AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 05/04/18 08:33, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 06:32:17PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> >> On 04/04/18 17:42, Greg KH wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 05:12:32PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> >>>> On 04/04/18 16:46, Greg KH wrote:
> >>>>> On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 04:30:30PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> >>>>>> On 04/04/18 16:27, Greg KH wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 12:38:43PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Please add the patches:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> commit 038bac2b02989acf1fc938cedcb7944c02672b9f upstream
> >>>>>>>> commit dfc9327ab7c99bc13e12106448615efba833886b upstream
> >>>>>>>> commit b17d9d1df3c33a4f1d2bf397e2257aecf9dc56d4 upstream
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> to the 4.15 and 4.16 stable kernels.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Those patches are needed to boot Linux as PVH guest on recent Xen.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> So a new feature?  Why is that ok for stable kernels?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It works for kernels since at least 4.11 on Xen 4.10.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Great, so what commit caused this to fail?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So far, in reading those commits, it sounds like they are "make Linux
> >>>>> work again due to changes in Xen".  That sounds like a pretty bad thing
> >>>>> that Xen did, why do we have to fix up their mess?
> >>>>
> >>>> Xen did nothing bad. It was the "old" kernel implementation which relied
> >>>> on an assumption which happened to be true by accident. Xen had to be
> >>>> changed in order to enable grub2 to support PVH mode.
> >>>>
> >>>> The PVH interface specifies that the RSDP address is available via the
> >>>> start_info structure handed over to the PVH boot entry. The Linux kernel
> >>>> didn't look at that address, but used the legacy method scanning low
> >>>> memory for the RSDP table. As soon as Xen moved the RSDP to a higher
> >>>> address (which is covered by the PVH interface specification) the kernel
> >>>> could no longer be booted.
> >>>>
> >>>> So it was clearly a fault of the kernel not complying to the PVH
> >>>> specification.
> >>>
> >>> But it worked previously, so you can't fault Linux here :)
> >>>
> >>> How many other operating systems broke with this change?
> >>
> >> None.
> >>
> >> BSD did it correctly. I guess Mini-OS doesn't count, as it is mostly
> >> Xen-internal, but it was not hit by this change.
> > 
> > Xen doesn't support anything other than BSD, Linux, and Mini-OS? :)
> 
> No other OS supports PVH mode so far.
> 
> >>> Not at all.  We have a working kernel here.  Xen changed and broke
> >>> working Linux systems.  Now I understand the goal of wanting to also
> >>> change Linux to work properly, but these changes are really a new
> >>> feature addition if you read the patches.
> >>
> >> We have a working kernel just by luck. Would your reasoning be the same
> >> if the kernel would use an EFI runtime service wrong and an EFI update
> >> would lead to a crash?
> > 
> > If a UEFI/BIOS update broken working systems, first we would go yell at
> > the BIOS engineers for doing something foolish (like I am doing here...)
> > Then we would grumble and go fix the issue in the latest kernel version
> > and tell people to update to a new release and never buy from that
> > vendor ever again as they obviously do not care about their users.
> 
> Even if the kernel wasn't using the EFI interfaces correctly and just
> worked by accident? Sorry, that's ridiculous.
> 
> > So, I'll gladly tell everyone who hits this bug, to stop using Xen as
> > they don't care about their users, and to work around it they have to
> > use the 4.17 kernel release.
> 
> The kernel is wrong here. You don't want to take the patches fixing the
> issue.

These are not just "patches to fix the issue", they are "patches to add
new features" that touch core acpi bits, right?  Support for new
hardware and platforms and such are not normally part of the stable
kernel patches at all (with the exceptions of tiny patches that add
device ids and quirks.)

That's my main objection here, combined with the obvious one of "Xen
does not care about their users".

> That's rather sad as PVH mode was meant to replace PV in the
> future, which will remove the need for most of the paravirt ops stuff.
> You are just shifting that possibility some months further into the
> future.

So if you run in PV mode, all is fine, right?  Great, then just use 4.17
or newer for PVH, what's the issue?  Who cares about this for older
kernel versions, those are all in running systems that would not be
changing their version of Xen.

But again, I still claim that Xen doesn't care about their users by
breaking existing systems, no matter if Linux was wrong or not.  That's
just how the world is, Linux has to handle stupid userspace programs,
and Xen needs to handle stupid operating system kernels, if those
projects which to succeed over time.

Personally, I use KVM and now will strongly recommend others do the
same.

thanks,

greg k-h

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] Patches for stable

[Juergen Gross]

On 05/04/18 09:14, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 09:02:27AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> On 05/04/18 08:33, Greg KH wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 06:32:17PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>> On 04/04/18 17:42, Greg KH wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 05:12:32PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>>>> On 04/04/18 16:46, Greg KH wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 04:30:30PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 04/04/18 16:27, Greg KH wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 12:38:43PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Please add the patches:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> commit 038bac2b02989acf1fc938cedcb7944c02672b9f upstream
>>>>>>>>>> commit dfc9327ab7c99bc13e12106448615efba833886b upstream
>>>>>>>>>> commit b17d9d1df3c33a4f1d2bf397e2257aecf9dc56d4 upstream
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> to the 4.15 and 4.16 stable kernels.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Those patches are needed to boot Linux as PVH guest on recent Xen.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So a new feature?  Why is that ok for stable kernels?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It works for kernels since at least 4.11 on Xen 4.10.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Great, so what commit caused this to fail?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So far, in reading those commits, it sounds like they are "make Linux
>>>>>>> work again due to changes in Xen".  That sounds like a pretty bad thing
>>>>>>> that Xen did, why do we have to fix up their mess?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Xen did nothing bad. It was the "old" kernel implementation which relied
>>>>>> on an assumption which happened to be true by accident. Xen had to be
>>>>>> changed in order to enable grub2 to support PVH mode.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The PVH interface specifies that the RSDP address is available via the
>>>>>> start_info structure handed over to the PVH boot entry. The Linux kernel
>>>>>> didn't look at that address, but used the legacy method scanning low
>>>>>> memory for the RSDP table. As soon as Xen moved the RSDP to a higher
>>>>>> address (which is covered by the PVH interface specification) the kernel
>>>>>> could no longer be booted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So it was clearly a fault of the kernel not complying to the PVH
>>>>>> specification.
>>>>>
>>>>> But it worked previously, so you can't fault Linux here :)
>>>>>
>>>>> How many other operating systems broke with this change?
>>>>
>>>> None.
>>>>
>>>> BSD did it correctly. I guess Mini-OS doesn't count, as it is mostly
>>>> Xen-internal, but it was not hit by this change.
>>>
>>> Xen doesn't support anything other than BSD, Linux, and Mini-OS? :)
>>
>> No other OS supports PVH mode so far.
>>
>>>>> Not at all.  We have a working kernel here.  Xen changed and broke
>>>>> working Linux systems.  Now I understand the goal of wanting to also
>>>>> change Linux to work properly, but these changes are really a new
>>>>> feature addition if you read the patches.
>>>>
>>>> We have a working kernel just by luck. Would your reasoning be the same
>>>> if the kernel would use an EFI runtime service wrong and an EFI update
>>>> would lead to a crash?
>>>
>>> If a UEFI/BIOS update broken working systems, first we would go yell at
>>> the BIOS engineers for doing something foolish (like I am doing here...)
>>> Then we would grumble and go fix the issue in the latest kernel version
>>> and tell people to update to a new release and never buy from that
>>> vendor ever again as they obviously do not care about their users.
>>
>> Even if the kernel wasn't using the EFI interfaces correctly and just
>> worked by accident? Sorry, that's ridiculous.
>>
>>> So, I'll gladly tell everyone who hits this bug, to stop using Xen as
>>> they don't care about their users, and to work around it they have to
>>> use the 4.17 kernel release.
>>
>> The kernel is wrong here. You don't want to take the patches fixing the
>> issue.
> 
> These are not just "patches to fix the issue", they are "patches to add
> new features" that touch core acpi bits, right?  Support for new
> hardware and platforms and such are not normally part of the stable
> kernel patches at all (with the exceptions of tiny patches that add
> device ids and quirks.)

The way the patches are written are the result of requests of the
maintainers (x86, acpi). This way they don't break layering of the
components. I'd be happy to rewrite them for stable kernels if you
like that better.

> That's my main objection here, combined with the obvious one of "Xen
> does not care about their users".

Xen does care. PVH support in Linux is relatively new (the first working
kernel was 4.11), Xen has full PVH guest support since Xen 4.10.

For being able to replace PV mode it is mandatory for PVH to not add
unnecessary performance overhead, as performance is the main reason for
customers to run their guests in PV mode (yes, PV guests _are_ faster,
especially with many vcpus).

It was discovered that placing the RSDP table in low memory is bad for
performance as it adds more memory map holes than necessary. So moving
the RSDP to the same memory area as all other ACPI tables was the
right move and completely compliant to the specified interface. So in
order not to hit performance for future guests it was decided to write
patches for Linux to comply to the interface and move the RSDP. We
hoped to get those patches into stable kernels, too, but it seems we
were wrong.

>> That's rather sad as PVH mode was meant to replace PV in the
>> future, which will remove the need for most of the paravirt ops stuff.
>> You are just shifting that possibility some months further into the
>> future.
> 
> So if you run in PV mode, all is fine, right?  Great, then just use 4.17
> or newer for PVH, what's the issue?  Who cares about this for older
> kernel versions, those are all in running systems that would not be
> changing their version of Xen.

The idea was to be able to use kernel 4.14 or newer for PVH.

As you don't seem to take the patches it will be 4.17, of course.


Juergen

Re: Patches for stable

[Juergen Gross]

On 05/04/18 09:14, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 09:02:27AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> On 05/04/18 08:33, Greg KH wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 06:32:17PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>> On 04/04/18 17:42, Greg KH wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 05:12:32PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>>>> On 04/04/18 16:46, Greg KH wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 04:30:30PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 04/04/18 16:27, Greg KH wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 12:38:43PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Please add the patches:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> commit 038bac2b02989acf1fc938cedcb7944c02672b9f upstream
>>>>>>>>>> commit dfc9327ab7c99bc13e12106448615efba833886b upstream
>>>>>>>>>> commit b17d9d1df3c33a4f1d2bf397e2257aecf9dc56d4 upstream
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> to the 4.15 and 4.16 stable kernels.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Those patches are needed to boot Linux as PVH guest on recent Xen.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So a new feature?  Why is that ok for stable kernels?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It works for kernels since at least 4.11 on Xen 4.10.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Great, so what commit caused this to fail?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So far, in reading those commits, it sounds like they are "make Linux
>>>>>>> work again due to changes in Xen".  That sounds like a pretty bad thing
>>>>>>> that Xen did, why do we have to fix up their mess?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Xen did nothing bad. It was the "old" kernel implementation which relied
>>>>>> on an assumption which happened to be true by accident. Xen had to be
>>>>>> changed in order to enable grub2 to support PVH mode.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The PVH interface specifies that the RSDP address is available via the
>>>>>> start_info structure handed over to the PVH boot entry. The Linux kernel
>>>>>> didn't look at that address, but used the legacy method scanning low
>>>>>> memory for the RSDP table. As soon as Xen moved the RSDP to a higher
>>>>>> address (which is covered by the PVH interface specification) the kernel
>>>>>> could no longer be booted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So it was clearly a fault of the kernel not complying to the PVH
>>>>>> specification.
>>>>>
>>>>> But it worked previously, so you can't fault Linux here :)
>>>>>
>>>>> How many other operating systems broke with this change?
>>>>
>>>> None.
>>>>
>>>> BSD did it correctly. I guess Mini-OS doesn't count, as it is mostly
>>>> Xen-internal, but it was not hit by this change.
>>>
>>> Xen doesn't support anything other than BSD, Linux, and Mini-OS? :)
>>
>> No other OS supports PVH mode so far.
>>
>>>>> Not at all.  We have a working kernel here.  Xen changed and broke
>>>>> working Linux systems.  Now I understand the goal of wanting to also
>>>>> change Linux to work properly, but these changes are really a new
>>>>> feature addition if you read the patches.
>>>>
>>>> We have a working kernel just by luck. Would your reasoning be the same
>>>> if the kernel would use an EFI runtime service wrong and an EFI update
>>>> would lead to a crash?
>>>
>>> If a UEFI/BIOS update broken working systems, first we would go yell at
>>> the BIOS engineers for doing something foolish (like I am doing here...)
>>> Then we would grumble and go fix the issue in the latest kernel version
>>> and tell people to update to a new release and never buy from that
>>> vendor ever again as they obviously do not care about their users.
>>
>> Even if the kernel wasn't using the EFI interfaces correctly and just
>> worked by accident? Sorry, that's ridiculous.
>>
>>> So, I'll gladly tell everyone who hits this bug, to stop using Xen as
>>> they don't care about their users, and to work around it they have to
>>> use the 4.17 kernel release.
>>
>> The kernel is wrong here. You don't want to take the patches fixing the
>> issue.
> 
> These are not just "patches to fix the issue", they are "patches to add
> new features" that touch core acpi bits, right?  Support for new
> hardware and platforms and such are not normally part of the stable
> kernel patches at all (with the exceptions of tiny patches that add
> device ids and quirks.)

The way the patches are written are the result of requests of the
maintainers (x86, acpi). This way they don't break layering of the
components. I'd be happy to rewrite them for stable kernels if you
like that better.

> That's my main objection here, combined with the obvious one of "Xen
> does not care about their users".

Xen does care. PVH support in Linux is relatively new (the first working
kernel was 4.11), Xen has full PVH guest support since Xen 4.10.

For being able to replace PV mode it is mandatory for PVH to not add
unnecessary performance overhead, as performance is the main reason for
customers to run their guests in PV mode (yes, PV guests _are_ faster,
especially with many vcpus).

It was discovered that placing the RSDP table in low memory is bad for
performance as it adds more memory map holes than necessary. So moving
the RSDP to the same memory area as all other ACPI tables was the
right move and completely compliant to the specified interface. So in
order not to hit performance for future guests it was decided to write
patches for Linux to comply to the interface and move the RSDP. We
hoped to get those patches into stable kernels, too, but it seems we
were wrong.

>> That's rather sad as PVH mode was meant to replace PV in the
>> future, which will remove the need for most of the paravirt ops stuff.
>> You are just shifting that possibility some months further into the
>> future.
> 
> So if you run in PV mode, all is fine, right?  Great, then just use 4.17
> or newer for PVH, what's the issue?  Who cares about this for older
> kernel versions, those are all in running systems that would not be
> changing their version of Xen.

The idea was to be able to use kernel 4.14 or newer for PVH.

As you don't seem to take the patches it will be 4.17, of course.


Juergen

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] Patches for stable

[George Dunlap]

On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 9:00 AM, Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com> wrote:
>> These are not just "patches to fix the issue", they are "patches to add
>> new features" that touch core acpi bits, right?  Support for new
>> hardware and platforms and such are not normally part of the stable
>> kernel patches at all (with the exceptions of tiny patches that add
>> device ids and quirks.)
>
> The way the patches are written are the result of requests of the
> maintainers (x86, acpi). This way they don't break layering of the
> components. I'd be happy to rewrite them for stable kernels if you
> like that better.
>
>> That's my main objection here, combined with the obvious one of "Xen
>> does not care about their users".
>
> Xen does care. PVH support in Linux is relatively new (the first working
> kernel was 4.11), Xen has full PVH guest support since Xen 4.10.
>
> For being able to replace PV mode it is mandatory for PVH to not add
> unnecessary performance overhead, as performance is the main reason for
> customers to run their guests in PV mode (yes, PV guests _are_ faster,
> especially with many vcpus).

I'm afraid I have to agree with Greg here regarding the meaning of
"supported"; and I remember expressing a similar sentiment when I
discovered that a recent Linux kernel wouldn't boot on the development
version of Xen.  Either we declare PVH in Linux 4.11-4.16 as
"supported", in which case we have to maintain backwards compatibility
and attempt not to break it; or we declare PVH in Linux 4.11-4.16 as
"tech preview" (retroactively), and Greg should feel free to ignore
these backports.

It's unfortunate that Linux 4.11 didn't follow the spec, but whose
fault is that?

The fact is, that as it stands, a user could have a perfectly working
system with Xen 4.10 and a load of PVH guests running stock Linux
4.15, and then upgrade to Xen 4.11 and have all those guests break for
no apparent reason.  That's a pretty obnoxious thing to do,
particularly as we made such a fanfare about Xen 4.10 finally having
PVH support, and encouraging everyone to go and use it.  How are all
of those users going to feel about Xen?

Aren't there flags in the binary somewhere that could tell the
toolstack / Xen whether the kernel in question needs the RSDP table in
lowmem, or whether it can be put higher?

 -George

Re: Patches for stable

[George Dunlap]

On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 9:00 AM, Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com> wrote:
>> These are not just "patches to fix the issue", they are "patches to add
>> new features" that touch core acpi bits, right?  Support for new
>> hardware and platforms and such are not normally part of the stable
>> kernel patches at all (with the exceptions of tiny patches that add
>> device ids and quirks.)
>
> The way the patches are written are the result of requests of the
> maintainers (x86, acpi). This way they don't break layering of the
> components. I'd be happy to rewrite them for stable kernels if you
> like that better.
>
>> That's my main objection here, combined with the obvious one of "Xen
>> does not care about their users".
>
> Xen does care. PVH support in Linux is relatively new (the first working
> kernel was 4.11), Xen has full PVH guest support since Xen 4.10.
>
> For being able to replace PV mode it is mandatory for PVH to not add
> unnecessary performance overhead, as performance is the main reason for
> customers to run their guests in PV mode (yes, PV guests _are_ faster,
> especially with many vcpus).

I'm afraid I have to agree with Greg here regarding the meaning of
"supported"; and I remember expressing a similar sentiment when I
discovered that a recent Linux kernel wouldn't boot on the development
version of Xen.  Either we declare PVH in Linux 4.11-4.16 as
"supported", in which case we have to maintain backwards compatibility
and attempt not to break it; or we declare PVH in Linux 4.11-4.16 as
"tech preview" (retroactively), and Greg should feel free to ignore
these backports.

It's unfortunate that Linux 4.11 didn't follow the spec, but whose
fault is that?

The fact is, that as it stands, a user could have a perfectly working
system with Xen 4.10 and a load of PVH guests running stock Linux
4.15, and then upgrade to Xen 4.11 and have all those guests break for
no apparent reason.  That's a pretty obnoxious thing to do,
particularly as we made such a fanfare about Xen 4.10 finally having
PVH support, and encouraging everyone to go and use it.  How are all
of those users going to feel about Xen?

Aren't there flags in the binary somewhere that could tell the
toolstack / Xen whether the kernel in question needs the RSDP table in
lowmem, or whether it can be put higher?

 -George

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] Patches for stable

[George Dunlap]

On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 11:06 AM, George Dunlap <dunlapg@umich.edu> wrote:
> The fact is, that as it stands, a user could have a perfectly working
> system with Xen 4.10 and a load of PVH guests running stock Linux
> 4.15, and then upgrade to Xen 4.11 and have all those guests break for
> no apparent reason.  That's a pretty obnoxious thing to do,
> particularly as we made such a fanfare about Xen 4.10 finally having
> PVH support, and encouraging everyone to go and use it.  How are all
> of those users going to feel about Xen?

I mean, imagine a cloud provider that's managed to get a bunch of
*customers* using PVH, because it's more secure than either PV or HVM
(fewer hypercalls and no device emulation).  Then she upgrades to Xen
4.11, and suddenly all the guests break on reboot!  Worse yet, the
only way to fix it is to have the customers either boot into classic
PV mode or HVM mode in order to actually get an updated kernel!
That's a real jerk move to pull on the early adopters who are so
critical for widespread adoption and feedback.

 -George

Re: Patches for stable

[George Dunlap]

On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 11:06 AM, George Dunlap <dunlapg@umich.edu> wrote:
> The fact is, that as it stands, a user could have a perfectly working
> system with Xen 4.10 and a load of PVH guests running stock Linux
> 4.15, and then upgrade to Xen 4.11 and have all those guests break for
> no apparent reason.  That's a pretty obnoxious thing to do,
> particularly as we made such a fanfare about Xen 4.10 finally having
> PVH support, and encouraging everyone to go and use it.  How are all
> of those users going to feel about Xen?

I mean, imagine a cloud provider that's managed to get a bunch of
*customers* using PVH, because it's more secure than either PV or HVM
(fewer hypercalls and no device emulation).  Then she upgrades to Xen
4.11, and suddenly all the guests break on reboot!  Worse yet, the
only way to fix it is to have the customers either boot into classic
PV mode or HVM mode in order to actually get an updated kernel!
That's a real jerk move to pull on the early adopters who are so
critical for widespread adoption and feedback.

 -George

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] Patches for stable

[Juergen Gross]

On 05/04/18 12:06, George Dunlap wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 9:00 AM, Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com> wrote:
>>> These are not just "patches to fix the issue", they are "patches to add
>>> new features" that touch core acpi bits, right?  Support for new
>>> hardware and platforms and such are not normally part of the stable
>>> kernel patches at all (with the exceptions of tiny patches that add
>>> device ids and quirks.)
>>
>> The way the patches are written are the result of requests of the
>> maintainers (x86, acpi). This way they don't break layering of the
>> components. I'd be happy to rewrite them for stable kernels if you
>> like that better.
>>
>>> That's my main objection here, combined with the obvious one of "Xen
>>> does not care about their users".
>>
>> Xen does care. PVH support in Linux is relatively new (the first working
>> kernel was 4.11), Xen has full PVH guest support since Xen 4.10.
>>
>> For being able to replace PV mode it is mandatory for PVH to not add
>> unnecessary performance overhead, as performance is the main reason for
>> customers to run their guests in PV mode (yes, PV guests _are_ faster,
>> especially with many vcpus).
> 
> I'm afraid I have to agree with Greg here regarding the meaning of
> "supported"; and I remember expressing a similar sentiment when I
> discovered that a recent Linux kernel wouldn't boot on the development
> version of Xen.  Either we declare PVH in Linux 4.11-4.16 as

You finally said:

  My subsequent response to Roger ("FWIW I can buy this argument") was
  meant to indicate I didn't have any more objection to the approach you
  guys were planning on taking.

> "supported", in which case we have to maintain backwards compatibility
> and attempt not to break it; or we declare PVH in Linux 4.11-4.16 as
> "tech preview" (retroactively), and Greg should feel free to ignore
> these backports.

I still believe he should take them, as they are correcting a bug in
the kernel.

> It's unfortunate that Linux 4.11 didn't follow the spec, but whose
> fault is that?

Linux? ;-)

I have no problem to admit that the patches adding PVH support to the
Linux kernel were wrong in this regard and I didn't detect that when
reviewing them.

> The fact is, that as it stands, a user could have a perfectly working
> system with Xen 4.10 and a load of PVH guests running stock Linux
> 4.15, and then upgrade to Xen 4.11 and have all those guests break for
> no apparent reason.  That's a pretty obnoxious thing to do,
> particularly as we made such a fanfare about Xen 4.10 finally having
> PVH support, and encouraging everyone to go and use it.  How are all
> of those users going to feel about Xen?

Point taken.

> Aren't there flags in the binary somewhere that could tell the
> toolstack / Xen whether the kernel in question needs the RSDP table in
> lowmem, or whether it can be put higher?

Not really. Analyzing the binary whether it accesses the rsdp_addr in
the start_info isn't the way to go, IMO.

I've sent a patch to xen-devel adding a quirk flag to the domain's
config to enable the admin special casing such an "old" kernel.


Juergen

Re: Patches for stable

[Juergen Gross]

On 05/04/18 12:06, George Dunlap wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 9:00 AM, Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com> wrote:
>>> These are not just "patches to fix the issue", they are "patches to add
>>> new features" that touch core acpi bits, right?  Support for new
>>> hardware and platforms and such are not normally part of the stable
>>> kernel patches at all (with the exceptions of tiny patches that add
>>> device ids and quirks.)
>>
>> The way the patches are written are the result of requests of the
>> maintainers (x86, acpi). This way they don't break layering of the
>> components. I'd be happy to rewrite them for stable kernels if you
>> like that better.
>>
>>> That's my main objection here, combined with the obvious one of "Xen
>>> does not care about their users".
>>
>> Xen does care. PVH support in Linux is relatively new (the first working
>> kernel was 4.11), Xen has full PVH guest support since Xen 4.10.
>>
>> For being able to replace PV mode it is mandatory for PVH to not add
>> unnecessary performance overhead, as performance is the main reason for
>> customers to run their guests in PV mode (yes, PV guests _are_ faster,
>> especially with many vcpus).
> 
> I'm afraid I have to agree with Greg here regarding the meaning of
> "supported"; and I remember expressing a similar sentiment when I
> discovered that a recent Linux kernel wouldn't boot on the development
> version of Xen.  Either we declare PVH in Linux 4.11-4.16 as

You finally said:

  My subsequent response to Roger ("FWIW I can buy this argument") was
  meant to indicate I didn't have any more objection to the approach you
  guys were planning on taking.

> "supported", in which case we have to maintain backwards compatibility
> and attempt not to break it; or we declare PVH in Linux 4.11-4.16 as
> "tech preview" (retroactively), and Greg should feel free to ignore
> these backports.

I still believe he should take them, as they are correcting a bug in
the kernel.

> It's unfortunate that Linux 4.11 didn't follow the spec, but whose
> fault is that?

Linux? ;-)

I have no problem to admit that the patches adding PVH support to the
Linux kernel were wrong in this regard and I didn't detect that when
reviewing them.

> The fact is, that as it stands, a user could have a perfectly working
> system with Xen 4.10 and a load of PVH guests running stock Linux
> 4.15, and then upgrade to Xen 4.11 and have all those guests break for
> no apparent reason.  That's a pretty obnoxious thing to do,
> particularly as we made such a fanfare about Xen 4.10 finally having
> PVH support, and encouraging everyone to go and use it.  How are all
> of those users going to feel about Xen?

Point taken.

> Aren't there flags in the binary somewhere that could tell the
> toolstack / Xen whether the kernel in question needs the RSDP table in
> lowmem, or whether it can be put higher?

Not really. Analyzing the binary whether it accesses the rsdp_addr in
the start_info isn't the way to go, IMO.

I've sent a patch to xen-devel adding a quirk flag to the domain's
config to enable the admin special casing such an "old" kernel.


Juergen

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] Patches for stable

[Boris Ostrovsky]

On 04/05/2018 08:19 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 05/04/18 12:06, George Dunlap wrote:
>
>> Aren't there flags in the binary somewhere that could tell the
>> toolstack / Xen whether the kernel in question needs the RSDP table in
>> lowmem, or whether it can be put higher?
> Not really. Analyzing the binary whether it accesses the rsdp_addr in
> the start_info isn't the way to go, IMO.
>
> I've sent a patch to xen-devel adding a quirk flag to the domain's
> config to enable the admin special casing such an "old" kernel.

Can we backport latest struct hvm_start_info changes (which bumped
interface version) to 4.11 and pass RSDP only for versions >=1?

-boris

Re: Patches for stable

[Boris Ostrovsky]

On 04/05/2018 08:19 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 05/04/18 12:06, George Dunlap wrote:
>
>> Aren't there flags in the binary somewhere that could tell the
>> toolstack / Xen whether the kernel in question needs the RSDP table in
>> lowmem, or whether it can be put higher?
> Not really. Analyzing the binary whether it accesses the rsdp_addr in
> the start_info isn't the way to go, IMO.
>
> I've sent a patch to xen-devel adding a quirk flag to the domain's
> config to enable the admin special casing such an "old" kernel.

Can we backport latest struct hvm_start_info changes (which bumped
interface version) to 4.11 and pass RSDP only for versions >=1?

-boris

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] Patches for stable

[Juergen Gross]

On 05/04/18 15:00, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 04/05/2018 08:19 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> On 05/04/18 12:06, George Dunlap wrote:
>>
>>> Aren't there flags in the binary somewhere that could tell the
>>> toolstack / Xen whether the kernel in question needs the RSDP table in
>>> lowmem, or whether it can be put higher?
>> Not really. Analyzing the binary whether it accesses the rsdp_addr in
>> the start_info isn't the way to go, IMO.
>>
>> I've sent a patch to xen-devel adding a quirk flag to the domain's
>> config to enable the admin special casing such an "old" kernel.
> 
> Can we backport latest struct hvm_start_info changes (which bumped
> interface version) to 4.11 and pass RSDP only for versions >=1?

And this would help how?

RSDP address is passed today, the kernel just doesn't read it. And
how should Xen know which interface version the kernel is supporting?
And Xen needs to know that in advance in order to place the RSDP in
low memory in case the kernel isn't reading the RSDP address from
start_info.


Juergen

Re: Patches for stable

[Juergen Gross]

On 05/04/18 15:00, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 04/05/2018 08:19 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> On 05/04/18 12:06, George Dunlap wrote:
>>
>>> Aren't there flags in the binary somewhere that could tell the
>>> toolstack / Xen whether the kernel in question needs the RSDP table in
>>> lowmem, or whether it can be put higher?
>> Not really. Analyzing the binary whether it accesses the rsdp_addr in
>> the start_info isn't the way to go, IMO.
>>
>> I've sent a patch to xen-devel adding a quirk flag to the domain's
>> config to enable the admin special casing such an "old" kernel.
> 
> Can we backport latest struct hvm_start_info changes (which bumped
> interface version) to 4.11 and pass RSDP only for versions >=1?

And this would help how?

RSDP address is passed today, the kernel just doesn't read it. And
how should Xen know which interface version the kernel is supporting?
And Xen needs to know that in advance in order to place the RSDP in
low memory in case the kernel isn't reading the RSDP address from
start_info.


Juergen

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] Patches for stable

[George Dunlap]

On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 2:06 PM, Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com> wrote:
> On 05/04/18 15:00, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>> On 04/05/2018 08:19 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>> On 05/04/18 12:06, George Dunlap wrote:
>>>
>>>> Aren't there flags in the binary somewhere that could tell the
>>>> toolstack / Xen whether the kernel in question needs the RSDP table in
>>>> lowmem, or whether it can be put higher?
>>> Not really. Analyzing the binary whether it accesses the rsdp_addr in
>>> the start_info isn't the way to go, IMO.
>>>
>>> I've sent a patch to xen-devel adding a quirk flag to the domain's
>>> config to enable the admin special casing such an "old" kernel.
>>
>> Can we backport latest struct hvm_start_info changes (which bumped
>> interface version) to 4.11 and pass RSDP only for versions >=1?
>
> And this would help how?
>
> RSDP address is passed today, the kernel just doesn't read it. And
> how should Xen know which interface version the kernel is supporting?
> And Xen needs to know that in advance in order to place the RSDP in
> low memory in case the kernel isn't reading the RSDP address from
> start_info.

But the kernel image has ELF notes, right?  You can put one that
indicates that this binary *does* know how to read the RSDP from the
start_info, and if you don't find that, put it in lowmem.

 -George

Re: Patches for stable

[George Dunlap]

On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 2:06 PM, Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com> wrote:
> On 05/04/18 15:00, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>> On 04/05/2018 08:19 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>> On 05/04/18 12:06, George Dunlap wrote:
>>>
>>>> Aren't there flags in the binary somewhere that could tell the
>>>> toolstack / Xen whether the kernel in question needs the RSDP table in
>>>> lowmem, or whether it can be put higher?
>>> Not really. Analyzing the binary whether it accesses the rsdp_addr in
>>> the start_info isn't the way to go, IMO.
>>>
>>> I've sent a patch to xen-devel adding a quirk flag to the domain's
>>> config to enable the admin special casing such an "old" kernel.
>>
>> Can we backport latest struct hvm_start_info changes (which bumped
>> interface version) to 4.11 and pass RSDP only for versions >=1?
>
> And this would help how?
>
> RSDP address is passed today, the kernel just doesn't read it. And
> how should Xen know which interface version the kernel is supporting?
> And Xen needs to know that in advance in order to place the RSDP in
> low memory in case the kernel isn't reading the RSDP address from
> start_info.

But the kernel image has ELF notes, right?  You can put one that
indicates that this binary *does* know how to read the RSDP from the
start_info, and if you don't find that, put it in lowmem.

 -George

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] Patches for stable

[Juergen Gross]

On 05/04/18 15:42, George Dunlap wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 2:06 PM, Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com> wrote:
>> On 05/04/18 15:00, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>>> On 04/05/2018 08:19 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>> On 05/04/18 12:06, George Dunlap wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Aren't there flags in the binary somewhere that could tell the
>>>>> toolstack / Xen whether the kernel in question needs the RSDP table in
>>>>> lowmem, or whether it can be put higher?
>>>> Not really. Analyzing the binary whether it accesses the rsdp_addr in
>>>> the start_info isn't the way to go, IMO.
>>>>
>>>> I've sent a patch to xen-devel adding a quirk flag to the domain's
>>>> config to enable the admin special casing such an "old" kernel.
>>>
>>> Can we backport latest struct hvm_start_info changes (which bumped
>>> interface version) to 4.11 and pass RSDP only for versions >=1?
>>
>> And this would help how?
>>
>> RSDP address is passed today, the kernel just doesn't read it. And
>> how should Xen know which interface version the kernel is supporting?
>> And Xen needs to know that in advance in order to place the RSDP in
>> low memory in case the kernel isn't reading the RSDP address from
>> start_info.
> 
> But the kernel image has ELF notes, right?  You can put one that
> indicates that this binary *does* know how to read the RSDP from the
> start_info, and if you don't find that, put it in lowmem.

Sow you would hurt BSD which does read the RSDP address correctly but
(today) has no such ELF note.

I think extending the PVH interface in such a way is no good idea.


Juergen

Re: Patches for stable

[Juergen Gross]

On 05/04/18 15:42, George Dunlap wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 2:06 PM, Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com> wrote:
>> On 05/04/18 15:00, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>>> On 04/05/2018 08:19 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>> On 05/04/18 12:06, George Dunlap wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Aren't there flags in the binary somewhere that could tell the
>>>>> toolstack / Xen whether the kernel in question needs the RSDP table in
>>>>> lowmem, or whether it can be put higher?
>>>> Not really. Analyzing the binary whether it accesses the rsdp_addr in
>>>> the start_info isn't the way to go, IMO.
>>>>
>>>> I've sent a patch to xen-devel adding a quirk flag to the domain's
>>>> config to enable the admin special casing such an "old" kernel.
>>>
>>> Can we backport latest struct hvm_start_info changes (which bumped
>>> interface version) to 4.11 and pass RSDP only for versions >=1?
>>
>> And this would help how?
>>
>> RSDP address is passed today, the kernel just doesn't read it. And
>> how should Xen know which interface version the kernel is supporting?
>> And Xen needs to know that in advance in order to place the RSDP in
>> low memory in case the kernel isn't reading the RSDP address from
>> start_info.
> 
> But the kernel image has ELF notes, right?  You can put one that
> indicates that this binary *does* know how to read the RSDP from the
> start_info, and if you don't find that, put it in lowmem.

Sow you would hurt BSD which does read the RSDP address correctly but
(today) has no such ELF note.

I think extending the PVH interface in such a way is no good idea.


Juergen


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] Patches for stable

[George Dunlap]

On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 3:09 PM, Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com> wrote:
> On 05/04/18 15:42, George Dunlap wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 2:06 PM, Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com> wrote:
>>> On 05/04/18 15:00, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>>>> On 04/05/2018 08:19 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>>> On 05/04/18 12:06, George Dunlap wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Aren't there flags in the binary somewhere that could tell the
>>>>>> toolstack / Xen whether the kernel in question needs the RSDP table in
>>>>>> lowmem, or whether it can be put higher?
>>>>> Not really. Analyzing the binary whether it accesses the rsdp_addr in
>>>>> the start_info isn't the way to go, IMO.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've sent a patch to xen-devel adding a quirk flag to the domain's
>>>>> config to enable the admin special casing such an "old" kernel.
>>>>
>>>> Can we backport latest struct hvm_start_info changes (which bumped
>>>> interface version) to 4.11 and pass RSDP only for versions >=1?
>>>
>>> And this would help how?
>>>
>>> RSDP address is passed today, the kernel just doesn't read it. And
>>> how should Xen know which interface version the kernel is supporting?
>>> And Xen needs to know that in advance in order to place the RSDP in
>>> low memory in case the kernel isn't reading the RSDP address from
>>> start_info.
>>
>> But the kernel image has ELF notes, right?  You can put one that
>> indicates that this binary *does* know how to read the RSDP from the
>> start_info, and if you don't find that, put it in lowmem.
>
> Sow you would hurt BSD which does read the RSDP address correctly but
> (today) has no such ELF note.
>
> I think extending the PVH interface in such a way is no good idea.

Option 1: Put the RSDP in lowmem unless we know the guest will use the
address in start_info
Pro: Existing Linux instances boot
Con: Existing BSD instances whose memory is an exact multiple of 1 GiB
will have slightly slower TLB miss times.

Option 2: Put the RSDP in highmem regardless
Pro: Existing BSD instances whose memory is an exact multiple of 1GiB
will have slightly faster TLB miss times
Con: Existing Linux instances don't boot at all

This seems like a no-brainer to me.  But anyway, maybe we should move
the discussion elsewhere and stop bothering Greg. :-)

 -George

Re: Patches for stable

[George Dunlap]

On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 3:09 PM, Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com> wrote:
> On 05/04/18 15:42, George Dunlap wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 2:06 PM, Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com> wrote:
>>> On 05/04/18 15:00, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>>>> On 04/05/2018 08:19 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>>> On 05/04/18 12:06, George Dunlap wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Aren't there flags in the binary somewhere that could tell the
>>>>>> toolstack / Xen whether the kernel in question needs the RSDP table in
>>>>>> lowmem, or whether it can be put higher?
>>>>> Not really. Analyzing the binary whether it accesses the rsdp_addr in
>>>>> the start_info isn't the way to go, IMO.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've sent a patch to xen-devel adding a quirk flag to the domain's
>>>>> config to enable the admin special casing such an "old" kernel.
>>>>
>>>> Can we backport latest struct hvm_start_info changes (which bumped
>>>> interface version) to 4.11 and pass RSDP only for versions >=1?
>>>
>>> And this would help how?
>>>
>>> RSDP address is passed today, the kernel just doesn't read it. And
>>> how should Xen know which interface version the kernel is supporting?
>>> And Xen needs to know that in advance in order to place the RSDP in
>>> low memory in case the kernel isn't reading the RSDP address from
>>> start_info.
>>
>> But the kernel image has ELF notes, right?  You can put one that
>> indicates that this binary *does* know how to read the RSDP from the
>> start_info, and if you don't find that, put it in lowmem.
>
> Sow you would hurt BSD which does read the RSDP address correctly but
> (today) has no such ELF note.
>
> I think extending the PVH interface in such a way is no good idea.

Option 1: Put the RSDP in lowmem unless we know the guest will use the
address in start_info
Pro: Existing Linux instances boot
Con: Existing BSD instances whose memory is an exact multiple of 1 GiB
will have slightly slower TLB miss times.

Option 2: Put the RSDP in highmem regardless
Pro: Existing BSD instances whose memory is an exact multiple of 1GiB
will have slightly faster TLB miss times
Con: Existing Linux instances don't boot at all

This seems like a no-brainer to me.  But anyway, maybe we should move
the discussion elsewhere and stop bothering Greg. :-)

 -George

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Re: Patches for stable

[Juergen Gross]

On 05/04/18 16:56, George Dunlap wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 3:09 PM, Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com> wrote:
>> On 05/04/18 15:42, George Dunlap wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 2:06 PM, Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com> wrote:
>>>> On 05/04/18 15:00, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>>>>> On 04/05/2018 08:19 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>>>> On 05/04/18 12:06, George Dunlap wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Aren't there flags in the binary somewhere that could tell the
>>>>>>> toolstack / Xen whether the kernel in question needs the RSDP table in
>>>>>>> lowmem, or whether it can be put higher?
>>>>>> Not really. Analyzing the binary whether it accesses the rsdp_addr in
>>>>>> the start_info isn't the way to go, IMO.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've sent a patch to xen-devel adding a quirk flag to the domain's
>>>>>> config to enable the admin special casing such an "old" kernel.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can we backport latest struct hvm_start_info changes (which bumped
>>>>> interface version) to 4.11 and pass RSDP only for versions >=1?
>>>>
>>>> And this would help how?
>>>>
>>>> RSDP address is passed today, the kernel just doesn't read it. And
>>>> how should Xen know which interface version the kernel is supporting?
>>>> And Xen needs to know that in advance in order to place the RSDP in
>>>> low memory in case the kernel isn't reading the RSDP address from
>>>> start_info.
>>>
>>> But the kernel image has ELF notes, right?  You can put one that
>>> indicates that this binary *does* know how to read the RSDP from the
>>> start_info, and if you don't find that, put it in lowmem.
>>
>> Sow you would hurt BSD which does read the RSDP address correctly but
>> (today) has no such ELF note.
>>
>> I think extending the PVH interface in such a way is no good idea.
> 
> Option 1: Put the RSDP in lowmem unless we know the guest will use the
> address in start_info
> Pro: Existing Linux instances boot
> Con: Existing BSD instances whose memory is an exact multiple of 1 GiB
> will have slightly slower TLB miss times.

... whose memory is >=1GiB ...

> Option 2: Put the RSDP in highmem regardless
> Pro: Existing BSD instances whose memory is an exact multiple of 1GiB

... whose memory is >=1GiB ...

> will have slightly faster TLB miss times
> Con: Existing Linux instances don't boot at all

Option 3: add a config item to domain config for selecting the RSDP
          placement, defaulting to highmem (my patch)
Pro: Existing BSD and new Linux instances whose memory is >=1GiB will
     have slightly faster TLB miss times
Pro: Existing Linux instances can be made bootable by adding a new
     item to their domain config

> This seems like a no-brainer to me.  But anyway, maybe we should move
> the discussion elsewhere and stop bothering Greg. :-)

Greg and stable removed.


Juergen

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Re: Patches for stable

[Boris Ostrovsky]

On 04/05/2018 01:11 PM, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 05/04/18 16:56, George Dunlap wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 3:09 PM, Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com> wrote:
>>> On 05/04/18 15:42, George Dunlap wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 2:06 PM, Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 05/04/18 15:00, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>>>>>> On 04/05/2018 08:19 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>>>>> On 05/04/18 12:06, George Dunlap wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Aren't there flags in the binary somewhere that could tell the
>>>>>>>> toolstack / Xen whether the kernel in question needs the RSDP table in
>>>>>>>> lowmem, or whether it can be put higher?
>>>>>>> Not really. Analyzing the binary whether it accesses the rsdp_addr in
>>>>>>> the start_info isn't the way to go, IMO.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've sent a patch to xen-devel adding a quirk flag to the domain's
>>>>>>> config to enable the admin special casing such an "old" kernel.
>>>>>> Can we backport latest struct hvm_start_info changes (which bumped
>>>>>> interface version) to 4.11 and pass RSDP only for versions >=1?
>>>>> And this would help how?
>>>>>
>>>>> RSDP address is passed today, the kernel just doesn't read it. And
>>>>> how should Xen know which interface version the kernel is supporting?
>>>>> And Xen needs to know that in advance in order to place the RSDP in
>>>>> low memory in case the kernel isn't reading the RSDP address from
>>>>> start_info.
>>>> But the kernel image has ELF notes, right?  You can put one that
>>>> indicates that this binary *does* know how to read the RSDP from the
>>>> start_info, and if you don't find that, put it in lowmem.
>>> Sow you would hurt BSD which does read the RSDP address correctly but
>>> (today) has no such ELF note.


This can be predicated on
    ELFNOTE(Xen, XEN_ELFNOTE_GUEST_OS,       .asciz "linux")

BSD will behave as it does now. For linux we could add feature flag (or
errata flag). Unfortunately I don't see a way to extract major.minor
from the headers, otherwise we could use that.

-boris


>>>
>>> I think extending the PVH interface in such a way is no good idea.
>> Option 1: Put the RSDP in lowmem unless we know the guest will use the
>> address in start_info
>> Pro: Existing Linux instances boot
>> Con: Existing BSD instances whose memory is an exact multiple of 1 GiB
>> will have slightly slower TLB miss times.
> ... whose memory is >=1GiB ...
>
>> Option 2: Put the RSDP in highmem regardless
>> Pro: Existing BSD instances whose memory is an exact multiple of 1GiB
> ... whose memory is >=1GiB ...
>
>> will have slightly faster TLB miss times
>> Con: Existing Linux instances don't boot at all
> Option 3: add a config item to domain config for selecting the RSDP
>           placement, defaulting to highmem (my patch)
> Pro: Existing BSD and new Linux instances whose memory is >=1GiB will
>      have slightly faster TLB miss times
> Pro: Existing Linux instances can be made bootable by adding a new
>      item to their domain config
>
>


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Re: Patches for stable

[Thomas Backlund]

Den 05.04.2018 kl. 10:02, skrev Juergen Gross:

> 
> The kernel is wrong here. You don't want to take the patches fixing the
> issue. That's rather sad as PVH mode was meant to replace PV in the
> future, which will remove the need for most of the paravirt ops stuff.
> You are just shifting that possibility some months further into the
> future.
> 
> I won't fight against you any longer.
> 

Please post the series adapted for 4.14 anyway for distros & users 
wanting to have the 4.14 series kernels working with new xen.

--
Thomas

Re: Patches for stable

[Thomas Backlund]

Den 05.04.2018 kl. 10:02, skrev Juergen Gross:

> 
> The kernel is wrong here. You don't want to take the patches fixing the
> issue. That's rather sad as PVH mode was meant to replace PV in the
> future, which will remove the need for most of the paravirt ops stuff.
> You are just shifting that possibility some months further into the
> future.
> 
> I won't fight against you any longer.
> 

Please post the series adapted for 4.14 anyway for distros & users 
wanting to have the 4.14 series kernels working with new xen.

--
Thomas

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Re: Patches for stable

[Juergen Gross]

On 05/04/18 20:33, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 04/05/2018 01:11 PM, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> On 05/04/18 16:56, George Dunlap wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 3:09 PM, Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com> wrote:
>>>> On 05/04/18 15:42, George Dunlap wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 2:06 PM, Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 05/04/18 15:00, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>>>>>>> On 04/05/2018 08:19 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 05/04/18 12:06, George Dunlap wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Aren't there flags in the binary somewhere that could tell the
>>>>>>>>> toolstack / Xen whether the kernel in question needs the RSDP table in
>>>>>>>>> lowmem, or whether it can be put higher?
>>>>>>>> Not really. Analyzing the binary whether it accesses the rsdp_addr in
>>>>>>>> the start_info isn't the way to go, IMO.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've sent a patch to xen-devel adding a quirk flag to the domain's
>>>>>>>> config to enable the admin special casing such an "old" kernel.
>>>>>>> Can we backport latest struct hvm_start_info changes (which bumped
>>>>>>> interface version) to 4.11 and pass RSDP only for versions >=1?
>>>>>> And this would help how?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> RSDP address is passed today, the kernel just doesn't read it. And
>>>>>> how should Xen know which interface version the kernel is supporting?
>>>>>> And Xen needs to know that in advance in order to place the RSDP in
>>>>>> low memory in case the kernel isn't reading the RSDP address from
>>>>>> start_info.
>>>>> But the kernel image has ELF notes, right?  You can put one that
>>>>> indicates that this binary *does* know how to read the RSDP from the
>>>>> start_info, and if you don't find that, put it in lowmem.
>>>> Sow you would hurt BSD which does read the RSDP address correctly but
>>>> (today) has no such ELF note.
> 
> 
> This can be predicated on
>     ELFNOTE(Xen, XEN_ELFNOTE_GUEST_OS,       .asciz "linux")
> 
> BSD will behave as it does now. For linux we could add feature flag (or
> errata flag). Unfortunately I don't see a way to extract major.minor
> from the headers, otherwise we could use that.

What's wrong with the config flag?

Adding a mandatory ELF-Note which says "yes, I really comply to the
interface" seems to be weird.

Juergen

> 
> -boris
> 
> 
>>>>
>>>> I think extending the PVH interface in such a way is no good idea.
>>> Option 1: Put the RSDP in lowmem unless we know the guest will use the
>>> address in start_info
>>> Pro: Existing Linux instances boot
>>> Con: Existing BSD instances whose memory is an exact multiple of 1 GiB
>>> will have slightly slower TLB miss times.
>> ... whose memory is >=1GiB ...
>>
>>> Option 2: Put the RSDP in highmem regardless
>>> Pro: Existing BSD instances whose memory is an exact multiple of 1GiB
>> ... whose memory is >=1GiB ...
>>
>>> will have slightly faster TLB miss times
>>> Con: Existing Linux instances don't boot at all
>> Option 3: add a config item to domain config for selecting the RSDP
>>           placement, defaulting to highmem (my patch)
>> Pro: Existing BSD and new Linux instances whose memory is >=1GiB will
>>      have slightly faster TLB miss times
>> Pro: Existing Linux instances can be made bootable by adding a new
>>      item to their domain config
>>
>>
> 
> 


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Re: Patches for stable

[George Dunlap]

On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 9:00 AM, Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com> wrote:
> On 05/04/18 20:33, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>> On 04/05/2018 01:11 PM, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>> On 05/04/18 16:56, George Dunlap wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 3:09 PM, Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 05/04/18 15:42, George Dunlap wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 2:06 PM, Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 05/04/18 15:00, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 04/05/2018 08:19 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 05/04/18 12:06, George Dunlap wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Aren't there flags in the binary somewhere that could tell the
>>>>>>>>>> toolstack / Xen whether the kernel in question needs the RSDP table in
>>>>>>>>>> lowmem, or whether it can be put higher?
>>>>>>>>> Not really. Analyzing the binary whether it accesses the rsdp_addr in
>>>>>>>>> the start_info isn't the way to go, IMO.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I've sent a patch to xen-devel adding a quirk flag to the domain's
>>>>>>>>> config to enable the admin special casing such an "old" kernel.
>>>>>>>> Can we backport latest struct hvm_start_info changes (which bumped
>>>>>>>> interface version) to 4.11 and pass RSDP only for versions >=1?
>>>>>>> And this would help how?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> RSDP address is passed today, the kernel just doesn't read it. And
>>>>>>> how should Xen know which interface version the kernel is supporting?
>>>>>>> And Xen needs to know that in advance in order to place the RSDP in
>>>>>>> low memory in case the kernel isn't reading the RSDP address from
>>>>>>> start_info.
>>>>>> But the kernel image has ELF notes, right?  You can put one that
>>>>>> indicates that this binary *does* know how to read the RSDP from the
>>>>>> start_info, and if you don't find that, put it in lowmem.
>>>>> Sow you would hurt BSD which does read the RSDP address correctly but
>>>>> (today) has no such ELF note.
>>
>>
>> This can be predicated on
>>     ELFNOTE(Xen, XEN_ELFNOTE_GUEST_OS,       .asciz "linux")
>>
>> BSD will behave as it does now. For linux we could add feature flag (or
>> errata flag). Unfortunately I don't see a way to extract major.minor
>> from the headers, otherwise we could use that.
>
> What's wrong with the config flag?

How do you know the config flag exists?  If you miss it in the release
notes, you just upgrade and have all your guests suddenly stop
booting.  You google around for an hour and discover that the shiny
new feature that the XenProject told you to use was purposely,
knowingly broken, and that now you need to set this flag in each of
your guest configs.  Then you have the question of when you can remove
the config flag.  Suppose someone is running Linux 4.15, then upgrades
to Linux 4.17, then wants to downgrade back to 4.15?

Even if this only takes half an hour of each administrator's time to
have to deal with for the next 2-3 years (which I think would be
optimistic), think of the total number of man-hours wasted and the
frustration and negative feelings generated having to deal with it.

*Lots* of people in the Linux community have Greg's attitude towards
breaking existing systems.  Even if he never said another word, a
large number of other people would feel the same way, and probably a
number would say so.  Heck, there'd be a chance that the Register
would pick up the story if it were in the release notes: "XenProject
releases 4.11, breaks shiny new feature just introduced in 4.10".

> Adding a mandatory ELF-Note which says "yes, I really comply to the
> interface" seems to be weird.

Yes, fundamentally it's a bit ugly to have a "Actually I really do
comply with the interface" flag.  But it's just a little flag tucked
in a header somewhere; the vast majority of the time nobody will see
it -- not even you.  It won't fundamentally make the interface
difficult to use, it won't have any input on the performance or the
size of the resulting binary; it won't tie us into a suboptimal
interface or prevent us from adding nice new features in the future.
It sounds like it won't even existing (compliant) FreeBSD kernels from
taking advantage of 1GiB pages.

Architectural purity is certainly a goal worth striving for, but in
this case the cost to our users is definitely not worth it.

 -George

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Re: Patches for stable

[George Dunlap]

On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 7:33 PM, Boris Ostrovsky
<boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com> wrote:
> On 04/05/2018 01:11 PM, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> On 05/04/18 16:56, George Dunlap wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 3:09 PM, Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com> wrote:
>>>> On 05/04/18 15:42, George Dunlap wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 2:06 PM, Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 05/04/18 15:00, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>>>>>>> On 04/05/2018 08:19 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 05/04/18 12:06, George Dunlap wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Aren't there flags in the binary somewhere that could tell the
>>>>>>>>> toolstack / Xen whether the kernel in question needs the RSDP table in
>>>>>>>>> lowmem, or whether it can be put higher?
>>>>>>>> Not really. Analyzing the binary whether it accesses the rsdp_addr in
>>>>>>>> the start_info isn't the way to go, IMO.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've sent a patch to xen-devel adding a quirk flag to the domain's
>>>>>>>> config to enable the admin special casing such an "old" kernel.
>>>>>>> Can we backport latest struct hvm_start_info changes (which bumped
>>>>>>> interface version) to 4.11 and pass RSDP only for versions >=1?
>>>>>> And this would help how?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> RSDP address is passed today, the kernel just doesn't read it. And
>>>>>> how should Xen know which interface version the kernel is supporting?
>>>>>> And Xen needs to know that in advance in order to place the RSDP in
>>>>>> low memory in case the kernel isn't reading the RSDP address from
>>>>>> start_info.
>>>>> But the kernel image has ELF notes, right?  You can put one that
>>>>> indicates that this binary *does* know how to read the RSDP from the
>>>>> start_info, and if you don't find that, put it in lowmem.
>>>> Sow you would hurt BSD which does read the RSDP address correctly but
>>>> (today) has no such ELF note.
>
>
> This can be predicated on
>     ELFNOTE(Xen, XEN_ELFNOTE_GUEST_OS,       .asciz "linux")
>
> BSD will behave as it does now. For linux we could add feature flag (or
> errata flag). Unfortunately I don't see a way to extract major.minor
> from the headers, otherwise we could use that.

OTOH, one advantage of having a separate elfnote, rather than gating
it on Linux version, is that if a distro wanted to, they could do
their own backport to (say) Linux 4.15 and reap the advantages.

 -George

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Re: Patches for stable

[Juergen Gross]

On 06/04/18 11:49, George Dunlap wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 7:33 PM, Boris Ostrovsky
> <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com> wrote:
>> On 04/05/2018 01:11 PM, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>> On 05/04/18 16:56, George Dunlap wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 3:09 PM, Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 05/04/18 15:42, George Dunlap wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 2:06 PM, Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 05/04/18 15:00, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 04/05/2018 08:19 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 05/04/18 12:06, George Dunlap wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Aren't there flags in the binary somewhere that could tell the
>>>>>>>>>> toolstack / Xen whether the kernel in question needs the RSDP table in
>>>>>>>>>> lowmem, or whether it can be put higher?
>>>>>>>>> Not really. Analyzing the binary whether it accesses the rsdp_addr in
>>>>>>>>> the start_info isn't the way to go, IMO.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I've sent a patch to xen-devel adding a quirk flag to the domain's
>>>>>>>>> config to enable the admin special casing such an "old" kernel.
>>>>>>>> Can we backport latest struct hvm_start_info changes (which bumped
>>>>>>>> interface version) to 4.11 and pass RSDP only for versions >=1?
>>>>>>> And this would help how?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> RSDP address is passed today, the kernel just doesn't read it. And
>>>>>>> how should Xen know which interface version the kernel is supporting?
>>>>>>> And Xen needs to know that in advance in order to place the RSDP in
>>>>>>> low memory in case the kernel isn't reading the RSDP address from
>>>>>>> start_info.
>>>>>> But the kernel image has ELF notes, right?  You can put one that
>>>>>> indicates that this binary *does* know how to read the RSDP from the
>>>>>> start_info, and if you don't find that, put it in lowmem.
>>>>> Sow you would hurt BSD which does read the RSDP address correctly but
>>>>> (today) has no such ELF note.
>>
>>
>> This can be predicated on
>>     ELFNOTE(Xen, XEN_ELFNOTE_GUEST_OS,       .asciz "linux")
>>
>> BSD will behave as it does now. For linux we could add feature flag (or
>> errata flag). Unfortunately I don't see a way to extract major.minor
>> from the headers, otherwise we could use that.
> 
> OTOH, one advantage of having a separate elfnote, rather than gating
> it on Linux version, is that if a distro wanted to, they could do
> their own backport to (say) Linux 4.15 and reap the advantages.

Hmm, Linux kernel has already an elfnote with the guest version. It is
set to "2.6". What about writing the actual kernel version into that
note and assume everything != "2.6" to support a high RSDP address?


Juergen

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Re: Patches for stable

[George Dunlap]

On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 11:02 AM, Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com> wrote:
> On 06/04/18 11:49, George Dunlap wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 7:33 PM, Boris Ostrovsky
>> <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com> wrote:
>>> On 04/05/2018 01:11 PM, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>> On 05/04/18 16:56, George Dunlap wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 3:09 PM, Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 05/04/18 15:42, George Dunlap wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 2:06 PM, Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 05/04/18 15:00, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 04/05/2018 08:19 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 05/04/18 12:06, George Dunlap wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Aren't there flags in the binary somewhere that could tell the
>>>>>>>>>>> toolstack / Xen whether the kernel in question needs the RSDP table in
>>>>>>>>>>> lowmem, or whether it can be put higher?
>>>>>>>>>> Not really. Analyzing the binary whether it accesses the rsdp_addr in
>>>>>>>>>> the start_info isn't the way to go, IMO.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I've sent a patch to xen-devel adding a quirk flag to the domain's
>>>>>>>>>> config to enable the admin special casing such an "old" kernel.
>>>>>>>>> Can we backport latest struct hvm_start_info changes (which bumped
>>>>>>>>> interface version) to 4.11 and pass RSDP only for versions >=1?
>>>>>>>> And this would help how?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> RSDP address is passed today, the kernel just doesn't read it. And
>>>>>>>> how should Xen know which interface version the kernel is supporting?
>>>>>>>> And Xen needs to know that in advance in order to place the RSDP in
>>>>>>>> low memory in case the kernel isn't reading the RSDP address from
>>>>>>>> start_info.
>>>>>>> But the kernel image has ELF notes, right?  You can put one that
>>>>>>> indicates that this binary *does* know how to read the RSDP from the
>>>>>>> start_info, and if you don't find that, put it in lowmem.
>>>>>> Sow you would hurt BSD which does read the RSDP address correctly but
>>>>>> (today) has no such ELF note.
>>>
>>>
>>> This can be predicated on
>>>     ELFNOTE(Xen, XEN_ELFNOTE_GUEST_OS,       .asciz "linux")
>>>
>>> BSD will behave as it does now. For linux we could add feature flag (or
>>> errata flag). Unfortunately I don't see a way to extract major.minor
>>> from the headers, otherwise we could use that.
>>
>> OTOH, one advantage of having a separate elfnote, rather than gating
>> it on Linux version, is that if a distro wanted to, they could do
>> their own backport to (say) Linux 4.15 and reap the advantages.
>
> Hmm, Linux kernel has already an elfnote with the guest version. It is
> set to "2.6". What about writing the actual kernel version into that
> note and assume everything != "2.6" to support a high RSDP address?

Why do you think it's 2.6 in the first place?  Because there are
user-space tools that depend on the kernel version being equal to
"2.6" which would break if that were changed.

*This* is the degree to which the Linux community tries to prevent
breaking existing systems -- because of a clear bug in userspace
tooling, they've kept the advertized kernel version the same for the
better part of a decade.

 -George

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Re: Patches for stable

[George Dunlap]

On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 6:11 PM, Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com> wrote:
>> Option 1: Put the RSDP in lowmem unless we know the guest will use the
>> address in start_info
>> Pro: Existing Linux instances boot
>> Con: Existing BSD instances whose memory is an exact multiple of 1 GiB
>> will have slightly slower TLB miss times.
>
> ... whose memory is >=1GiB ...

No, the performance benefit only applies to sections of ram that are
complete 1GiB-aligned sections.  If you have 1.75GiB, then the first
gigabyte will be a 1GiB page in the p2m (and get the performance
benefit) but the other 0.75GiB will be 2MiB aligned (and not).

We can be pedantic and nail down exactly who will get what benefit
when, but all it will do is demonstrate how limited this performance
benefit is.

 -George

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Re: Patches for stable

[Juergen Gross]

On 06/04/18 12:13, George Dunlap wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 6:11 PM, Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com> wrote:
>>> Option 1: Put the RSDP in lowmem unless we know the guest will use the
>>> address in start_info
>>> Pro: Existing Linux instances boot
>>> Con: Existing BSD instances whose memory is an exact multiple of 1 GiB
>>> will have slightly slower TLB miss times.
>>
>> ... whose memory is >=1GiB ...
> 
> No, the performance benefit only applies to sections of ram that are
> complete 1GiB-aligned sections.  If you have 1.75GiB, then the first
> gigabyte will be a 1GiB page in the p2m (and get the performance
> benefit) but the other 0.75GiB will be 2MiB aligned (and not).

Right. Moving the RSDP out of the first GiB will make it possible to
map that area with a single 1 GiB page.

> We can be pedantic and nail down exactly who will get what benefit
> when, but all it will do is demonstrate how limited this performance
> benefit is.

Moving the shared_info page of HVM guests allowing large pages to be
used increased HVM performance by several percent (e.g. munmap of
user pages was up to 2 times faster this way).


Juergen

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Re: Patches for stable

[Juergen Gross]

On 06/04/18 12:07, George Dunlap wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 11:02 AM, Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com> wrote:
>> On 06/04/18 11:49, George Dunlap wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 7:33 PM, Boris Ostrovsky
>>> <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com> wrote:
>>>> On 04/05/2018 01:11 PM, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>>> On 05/04/18 16:56, George Dunlap wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 3:09 PM, Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 05/04/18 15:42, George Dunlap wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 2:06 PM, Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 05/04/18 15:00, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 04/05/2018 08:19 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 05/04/18 12:06, George Dunlap wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Aren't there flags in the binary somewhere that could tell the
>>>>>>>>>>>> toolstack / Xen whether the kernel in question needs the RSDP table in
>>>>>>>>>>>> lowmem, or whether it can be put higher?
>>>>>>>>>>> Not really. Analyzing the binary whether it accesses the rsdp_addr in
>>>>>>>>>>> the start_info isn't the way to go, IMO.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I've sent a patch to xen-devel adding a quirk flag to the domain's
>>>>>>>>>>> config to enable the admin special casing such an "old" kernel.
>>>>>>>>>> Can we backport latest struct hvm_start_info changes (which bumped
>>>>>>>>>> interface version) to 4.11 and pass RSDP only for versions >=1?
>>>>>>>>> And this would help how?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> RSDP address is passed today, the kernel just doesn't read it. And
>>>>>>>>> how should Xen know which interface version the kernel is supporting?
>>>>>>>>> And Xen needs to know that in advance in order to place the RSDP in
>>>>>>>>> low memory in case the kernel isn't reading the RSDP address from
>>>>>>>>> start_info.
>>>>>>>> But the kernel image has ELF notes, right?  You can put one that
>>>>>>>> indicates that this binary *does* know how to read the RSDP from the
>>>>>>>> start_info, and if you don't find that, put it in lowmem.
>>>>>>> Sow you would hurt BSD which does read the RSDP address correctly but
>>>>>>> (today) has no such ELF note.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This can be predicated on
>>>>     ELFNOTE(Xen, XEN_ELFNOTE_GUEST_OS,       .asciz "linux")
>>>>
>>>> BSD will behave as it does now. For linux we could add feature flag (or
>>>> errata flag). Unfortunately I don't see a way to extract major.minor
>>>> from the headers, otherwise we could use that.
>>>
>>> OTOH, one advantage of having a separate elfnote, rather than gating
>>> it on Linux version, is that if a distro wanted to, they could do
>>> their own backport to (say) Linux 4.15 and reap the advantages.
>>
>> Hmm, Linux kernel has already an elfnote with the guest version. It is
>> set to "2.6". What about writing the actual kernel version into that
>> note and assume everything != "2.6" to support a high RSDP address?
> 
> Why do you think it's 2.6 in the first place?  Because there are
> user-space tools that depend on the kernel version being equal to
> "2.6" which would break if that were changed.

Can you give me a hint where this would be? The elfnote is being fed
into elf_dom_parms->guest_ver. I couldn't find any reference to that
other than setting it.

The other reference I could find is the readnotes utility. In the Xen
tree I couldn't find any tool using the output of that.

> *This* is the degree to which the Linux community tries to prevent
> breaking existing systems -- because of a clear bug in userspace
> tooling, they've kept the advertized kernel version the same for the
> better part of a decade.

You are aware of the fact I'm speaking of a Xen-specific elfnote?


Juergen

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Re: Patches for stable

[George Dunlap]

On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 11:57 AM, Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com> wrote:
> On 06/04/18 12:07, George Dunlap wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 11:02 AM, Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com> wrote:
>>> On 06/04/18 11:49, George Dunlap wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 7:33 PM, Boris Ostrovsky
>>>> <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 04/05/2018 01:11 PM, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>>>> On 05/04/18 16:56, George Dunlap wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 3:09 PM, Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 05/04/18 15:42, George Dunlap wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 2:06 PM, Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 05/04/18 15:00, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 04/05/2018 08:19 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 05/04/18 12:06, George Dunlap wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aren't there flags in the binary somewhere that could tell the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> toolstack / Xen whether the kernel in question needs the RSDP table in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> lowmem, or whether it can be put higher?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Not really. Analyzing the binary whether it accesses the rsdp_addr in
>>>>>>>>>>>> the start_info isn't the way to go, IMO.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I've sent a patch to xen-devel adding a quirk flag to the domain's
>>>>>>>>>>>> config to enable the admin special casing such an "old" kernel.
>>>>>>>>>>> Can we backport latest struct hvm_start_info changes (which bumped
>>>>>>>>>>> interface version) to 4.11 and pass RSDP only for versions >=1?
>>>>>>>>>> And this would help how?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> RSDP address is passed today, the kernel just doesn't read it. And
>>>>>>>>>> how should Xen know which interface version the kernel is supporting?
>>>>>>>>>> And Xen needs to know that in advance in order to place the RSDP in
>>>>>>>>>> low memory in case the kernel isn't reading the RSDP address from
>>>>>>>>>> start_info.
>>>>>>>>> But the kernel image has ELF notes, right?  You can put one that
>>>>>>>>> indicates that this binary *does* know how to read the RSDP from the
>>>>>>>>> start_info, and if you don't find that, put it in lowmem.
>>>>>>>> Sow you would hurt BSD which does read the RSDP address correctly but
>>>>>>>> (today) has no such ELF note.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This can be predicated on
>>>>>     ELFNOTE(Xen, XEN_ELFNOTE_GUEST_OS,       .asciz "linux")
>>>>>
>>>>> BSD will behave as it does now. For linux we could add feature flag (or
>>>>> errata flag). Unfortunately I don't see a way to extract major.minor
>>>>> from the headers, otherwise we could use that.
>>>>
>>>> OTOH, one advantage of having a separate elfnote, rather than gating
>>>> it on Linux version, is that if a distro wanted to, they could do
>>>> their own backport to (say) Linux 4.15 and reap the advantages.
>>>
>>> Hmm, Linux kernel has already an elfnote with the guest version. It is
>>> set to "2.6". What about writing the actual kernel version into that
>>> note and assume everything != "2.6" to support a high RSDP address?
>>
>> Why do you think it's 2.6 in the first place?  Because there are
>> user-space tools that depend on the kernel version being equal to
>> "2.6" which would break if that were changed.
>
> Can you give me a hint where this would be? The elfnote is being fed
> into elf_dom_parms->guest_ver. I couldn't find any reference to that
> other than setting it.
>
> The other reference I could find is the readnotes utility. In the Xen
> tree I couldn't find any tool using the output of that.
>
>> *This* is the degree to which the Linux community tries to prevent
>> breaking existing systems -- because of a clear bug in userspace
>> tooling, they've kept the advertized kernel version the same for the
>> better part of a decade.
>
> You are aware of the fact I'm speaking of a Xen-specific elfnote?

No I wasn't.

FWIW I think taking "I have set the kernel version correctly" to mean
"I know to read the address of the RSDP table from the start_info
page" isn't a very good idea.  For one, it's fragile: someone may not
realize that the one implies the other.  Secondly, it may turn out
that there's a reason it's been kept at "2.6", and then we'd have to
revert the one change and make a new elfnote anyway.

But I don't know enough about this particular area to argue strongly
one way or the other.

 -George

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Re: Patches for stable

[Juergen Gross]

On 06/04/18 13:13, George Dunlap wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 11:57 AM, Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com> wrote:
>> On 06/04/18 12:07, George Dunlap wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 11:02 AM, Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com> wrote:
>>>> On 06/04/18 11:49, George Dunlap wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 7:33 PM, Boris Ostrovsky
>>>>> <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 04/05/2018 01:11 PM, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>>>>> On 05/04/18 16:56, George Dunlap wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 3:09 PM, Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 05/04/18 15:42, George Dunlap wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 2:06 PM, Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 05/04/18 15:00, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 04/05/2018 08:19 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 05/04/18 12:06, George Dunlap wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aren't there flags in the binary somewhere that could tell the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> toolstack / Xen whether the kernel in question needs the RSDP table in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lowmem, or whether it can be put higher?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not really. Analyzing the binary whether it accesses the rsdp_addr in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the start_info isn't the way to go, IMO.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've sent a patch to xen-devel adding a quirk flag to the domain's
>>>>>>>>>>>>> config to enable the admin special casing such an "old" kernel.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Can we backport latest struct hvm_start_info changes (which bumped
>>>>>>>>>>>> interface version) to 4.11 and pass RSDP only for versions >=1?
>>>>>>>>>>> And this would help how?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> RSDP address is passed today, the kernel just doesn't read it. And
>>>>>>>>>>> how should Xen know which interface version the kernel is supporting?
>>>>>>>>>>> And Xen needs to know that in advance in order to place the RSDP in
>>>>>>>>>>> low memory in case the kernel isn't reading the RSDP address from
>>>>>>>>>>> start_info.
>>>>>>>>>> But the kernel image has ELF notes, right?  You can put one that
>>>>>>>>>> indicates that this binary *does* know how to read the RSDP from the
>>>>>>>>>> start_info, and if you don't find that, put it in lowmem.
>>>>>>>>> Sow you would hurt BSD which does read the RSDP address correctly but
>>>>>>>>> (today) has no such ELF note.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This can be predicated on
>>>>>>     ELFNOTE(Xen, XEN_ELFNOTE_GUEST_OS,       .asciz "linux")
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BSD will behave as it does now. For linux we could add feature flag (or
>>>>>> errata flag). Unfortunately I don't see a way to extract major.minor
>>>>>> from the headers, otherwise we could use that.
>>>>>
>>>>> OTOH, one advantage of having a separate elfnote, rather than gating
>>>>> it on Linux version, is that if a distro wanted to, they could do
>>>>> their own backport to (say) Linux 4.15 and reap the advantages.
>>>>
>>>> Hmm, Linux kernel has already an elfnote with the guest version. It is
>>>> set to "2.6". What about writing the actual kernel version into that
>>>> note and assume everything != "2.6" to support a high RSDP address?
>>>
>>> Why do you think it's 2.6 in the first place?  Because there are
>>> user-space tools that depend on the kernel version being equal to
>>> "2.6" which would break if that were changed.
>>
>> Can you give me a hint where this would be? The elfnote is being fed
>> into elf_dom_parms->guest_ver. I couldn't find any reference to that
>> other than setting it.
>>
>> The other reference I could find is the readnotes utility. In the Xen
>> tree I couldn't find any tool using the output of that.
>>
>>> *This* is the degree to which the Linux community tries to prevent
>>> breaking existing systems -- because of a clear bug in userspace
>>> tooling, they've kept the advertized kernel version the same for the
>>> better part of a decade.
>>
>> You are aware of the fact I'm speaking of a Xen-specific elfnote?
> 
> No I wasn't.
> 
> FWIW I think taking "I have set the kernel version correctly" to mean
> "I know to read the address of the RSDP table from the start_info
> page" isn't a very good idea.  For one, it's fragile: someone may not
> realize that the one implies the other.  Secondly, it may turn out
> that there's a reason it's been kept at "2.6", and then we'd have to
> revert the one change and make a new elfnote anyway.

Hmm, good point.

So its time for a new XENFEAT_ value then? This would be the least
intrusive way to add such a flag. Something like
XENFEAT_linux_high_rsdp_address_okay ?


Juergen


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Re: Patches for stable

[George Dunlap]

On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 2:12 PM, Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com> wrote:
> On 06/04/18 13:13, George Dunlap wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 11:57 AM, Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com> wrote:
>>> On 06/04/18 12:07, George Dunlap wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 11:02 AM, Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 06/04/18 11:49, George Dunlap wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 7:33 PM, Boris Ostrovsky
>>>>>> <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 04/05/2018 01:11 PM, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 05/04/18 16:56, George Dunlap wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 3:09 PM, Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 05/04/18 15:42, George Dunlap wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 2:06 PM, Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 05/04/18 15:00, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 04/05/2018 08:19 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 05/04/18 12:06, George Dunlap wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aren't there flags in the binary somewhere that could tell the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> toolstack / Xen whether the kernel in question needs the RSDP table in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lowmem, or whether it can be put higher?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not really. Analyzing the binary whether it accesses the rsdp_addr in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the start_info isn't the way to go, IMO.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've sent a patch to xen-devel adding a quirk flag to the domain's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> config to enable the admin special casing such an "old" kernel.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can we backport latest struct hvm_start_info changes (which bumped
>>>>>>>>>>>>> interface version) to 4.11 and pass RSDP only for versions >=1?
>>>>>>>>>>>> And this would help how?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> RSDP address is passed today, the kernel just doesn't read it. And
>>>>>>>>>>>> how should Xen know which interface version the kernel is supporting?
>>>>>>>>>>>> And Xen needs to know that in advance in order to place the RSDP in
>>>>>>>>>>>> low memory in case the kernel isn't reading the RSDP address from
>>>>>>>>>>>> start_info.
>>>>>>>>>>> But the kernel image has ELF notes, right?  You can put one that
>>>>>>>>>>> indicates that this binary *does* know how to read the RSDP from the
>>>>>>>>>>> start_info, and if you don't find that, put it in lowmem.
>>>>>>>>>> Sow you would hurt BSD which does read the RSDP address correctly but
>>>>>>>>>> (today) has no such ELF note.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This can be predicated on
>>>>>>>     ELFNOTE(Xen, XEN_ELFNOTE_GUEST_OS,       .asciz "linux")
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BSD will behave as it does now. For linux we could add feature flag (or
>>>>>>> errata flag). Unfortunately I don't see a way to extract major.minor
>>>>>>> from the headers, otherwise we could use that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OTOH, one advantage of having a separate elfnote, rather than gating
>>>>>> it on Linux version, is that if a distro wanted to, they could do
>>>>>> their own backport to (say) Linux 4.15 and reap the advantages.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmm, Linux kernel has already an elfnote with the guest version. It is
>>>>> set to "2.6". What about writing the actual kernel version into that
>>>>> note and assume everything != "2.6" to support a high RSDP address?
>>>>
>>>> Why do you think it's 2.6 in the first place?  Because there are
>>>> user-space tools that depend on the kernel version being equal to
>>>> "2.6" which would break if that were changed.
>>>
>>> Can you give me a hint where this would be? The elfnote is being fed
>>> into elf_dom_parms->guest_ver. I couldn't find any reference to that
>>> other than setting it.
>>>
>>> The other reference I could find is the readnotes utility. In the Xen
>>> tree I couldn't find any tool using the output of that.
>>>
>>>> *This* is the degree to which the Linux community tries to prevent
>>>> breaking existing systems -- because of a clear bug in userspace
>>>> tooling, they've kept the advertized kernel version the same for the
>>>> better part of a decade.
>>>
>>> You are aware of the fact I'm speaking of a Xen-specific elfnote?
>>
>> No I wasn't.
>>
>> FWIW I think taking "I have set the kernel version correctly" to mean
>> "I know to read the address of the RSDP table from the start_info
>> page" isn't a very good idea.  For one, it's fragile: someone may not
>> realize that the one implies the other.  Secondly, it may turn out
>> that there's a reason it's been kept at "2.6", and then we'd have to
>> revert the one change and make a new elfnote anyway.
>
> Hmm, good point.
>
> So its time for a new XENFEAT_ value then? This would be the least
> intrusive way to add such a flag. Something like
> XENFEAT_linux_high_rsdp_address_okay ?

That sounds reasonable to me.  I'd personally make it something like
"reads_rsdp_from_start_info" or something, but the name doesn't matter
to me as much. :-)

The other option would be to introduce a "max_pvh_interface_supported"
or something.  If it's not present (and it's a Linux kernel), default
it to '0', and have that mean "RSDP must be under 1MiB".

That will allow us elbow-room in the future if we want to make other
breaking changes like this, without needing to keep a separate flag
around for each one indefinitely.

 -George

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Re: Patches for stable

[Boris Ostrovsky]

On 04/06/2018 09:33 AM, George Dunlap wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 2:12 PM, Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com> wrote:
>>
>> So its time for a new XENFEAT_ value then? This would be the least
>> intrusive way to add such a flag. Something like
>> XENFEAT_linux_high_rsdp_address_okay ?
> That sounds reasonable to me.  I'd personally make it something like
> "reads_rsdp_from_start_info" or something, but the name doesn't matter
> to me as much. :-)
>
> The other option would be to introduce a "max_pvh_interface_supported"
> or something.  If it's not present (and it's a Linux kernel), default
> it to '0', and have that mean "RSDP must be under 1MiB".
>
> That will allow us elbow-room in the future if we want to make other
> breaking changes like this, without needing to keep a separate flag
> around for each one indefinitely.

I slightly more prefer a per-feature bit. It is indeed somewhat more
maintenance-heavy but is also more flexible.

-boris


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Re: Patches for stable

[Juergen Gross]

On 06/04/18 16:10, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 04/06/2018 09:33 AM, George Dunlap wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 2:12 PM, Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> So its time for a new XENFEAT_ value then? This would be the least
>>> intrusive way to add such a flag. Something like
>>> XENFEAT_linux_high_rsdp_address_okay ?
>> That sounds reasonable to me.  I'd personally make it something like
>> "reads_rsdp_from_start_info" or something, but the name doesn't matter
>> to me as much. :-)
>>
>> The other option would be to introduce a "max_pvh_interface_supported"
>> or something.  If it's not present (and it's a Linux kernel), default
>> it to '0', and have that mean "RSDP must be under 1MiB".
>>
>> That will allow us elbow-room in the future if we want to make other
>> breaking changes like this, without needing to keep a separate flag
>> around for each one indefinitely.
> 
> I slightly more prefer a per-feature bit. It is indeed somewhat more
> maintenance-heavy but is also more flexible.

+1


Juergen

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Patches for stable

[Juergen Gross]

Please add the patches:

commit 038bac2b02989acf1fc938cedcb7944c02672b9f upstream
commit dfc9327ab7c99bc13e12106448615efba833886b upstream
commit b17d9d1df3c33a4f1d2bf397e2257aecf9dc56d4 upstream

to the 4.15 and 4.16 stable kernels.

Those patches are needed to boot Linux as PVH guest on recent Xen.
In PVH mode there is no guarantee the kernel can find the RSDP table
at the legacy location in low memory, which is a requirement for the
kernel to boot successful without those patches.

For kernel 4.14 I'll send a slightly modified version of the patches
soon.


Juergen

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel