On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 01:43:24PM +0000, Joao Martins wrote:
On 12/19/2017 01:13 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 01:01:36PM +0000, Joao Martins wrote:
>> [Sorry for double posting, but I mistakenly forgot to include libvirt list)
>>
>> +WimT +Daniel
>>
>> On 12/10/2017 02:10 AM, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki wrote:
>>> <cpu mode='host-passthrough'> element may be used to configure
other
>>> features, like NUMA, or CPUID. Do not enable nested HVM (which is in
>>> "preview" state after all) by mere presence of
>>> <cpu mode='host-passthrough'> element, but require explicit
<feature
>>> policy='force' name='vmx'/> (or 'svm').
>>> Also, adjust xenconfig driver to appropriately translate to/from
>>> nestedhvm=1.
>>>
>>> While at it, adjust xenconfig driver to not override def->cpu if already
>>> set elsewhere. This will help with adding cpuid support.
>>
>> I agree with this and it was what we came up in the first version of nested hvm
>> support[0]. Although Daniel suggested there to use the same semantics of qemu
>> driver such that host-passthrough enables nested hvm without the use of:
>>
>> <feature policy='require' name='vmx'/>
>
> Yes, the key point of libvirt is to apply consistent semantics across different
> drivers, so we should not diverge betweeen QEMU & Xen in this regard.
>
/nods
> 'host-passthrough' and 'host-model' are supposed to expose *every*
feature that
> the host CPUs support (except for those few which the hypervisor may block due
> to ability to virtualize them).
>
> So 'host-passthrough' is correct to automatically expose vmx/svm, without
> requiring any extra <feature> element, and I don't think we can accept
> this patch.
>
> This has been the case for KVM for ages, even though it has been considered
> experimental. The only slight difference is that you can block use of svm/vmx
> at the host OS level via a kernel arg to the kvm modules.
>
Ah that's where Xen falls off a little in which there's only libxl nested_hvm
field to control it, even though is still marked Experimental. There's no global
parameter to block it.
You could conceivably replicate the host-level control KVM has by using an
/etc/libvirt/libxl.conf driver level config option to indicate whether
nested-virt is permitted or not.
Regards,
Daniel
--
|:
https://berrange.com -o-
https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|:
https://libvirt.org -o-
https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|:
https://entangle-photo.org -o-
https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|