| |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] RE: Biweekly VMX status report. Xen: #20255 & Xen0:#b6ba
|
To: |
Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
Subject: |
Re: [Xen-devel] RE: Biweekly VMX status report. Xen: #20255 & Xen0:#b6ba0... |
|
From: |
Tim Deegan <Tim.Deegan@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|
Date: |
Wed, 30 Sep 2009 10:08:10 +0100 |
|
Cc: |
"Xin, Xiaohui" <xiaohui.xin@xxxxxxxxx>, "'xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Xu, Jiajun" <jiajun.xu@xxxxxxxxx>, "Han, Weidong" <weidong.han@xxxxxxxxx>, "Kay, Allen M" <allen.m.kay@xxxxxxxxx>, George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Li, Xin" <xin.li@xxxxxxxxx>, "Nakajima, Jun" <jun.nakajima@xxxxxxxxx> |
|
Delivery-date: |
Wed, 30 Sep 2009 02:10:49 -0700 |
|
Envelope-to: |
www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|
In-reply-to: |
<C6E8BFD0.16117%keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
List-help: |
<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help> |
|
List-id: |
Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com> |
|
List-post: |
<mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com> |
|
List-subscribe: |
<http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe> |
|
List-unsubscribe: |
<http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe> |
|
References: |
<0463F45F3606F4428ED35AC8C709F92E089B659B27@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <C6E8BFD0.16117%keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
Sender: |
xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) |
Hi,
At 07:57 +0100 on 30 Sep (1254297424), Keir Fraser wrote:
> On 30/09/2009 02:15, "Xu, Jiajun" <jiajun.xu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >> 1. Booting guest with device assigned & EPT enabled cause xen crash
> >> http://bugzilla.xensource.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1518
> >
> > For the above bug, it's a regression which does not exist in xen c/s 20187.
> > Could anyone help to fix it?
> >
> > It's likely that the issue is introduced by the "pod for EPT" patches
> > (20191~20197).
>
> It is caused by the addition of an assertion that p2m_is_locked_by_me in
> ept_sync_domain(). This was done because that function needs to be
> serialised, and we expected that anyone coming through set_p2m_entry() would
> have the p2m_lock held.
That's a very good assumption - it's the whole purpose of the p2m lock,
in fact. And doubly so in the EPT code, which doesnt seem to take any
care over concurrency at all.
> So, we could 'fix' by giving ept_sync_domain() its own lock, but my
> suspicion would be that any paths through the p2m code that are not holding
> the p2m_lock probably need to be fixed. Adjusting p2m entries without the
> lock held sounds racey to me.
The {set,clear}_mmio_p2m_entry functions that were added for Vt-D MMIO
passthrough don't seem to do any locking. (Actually, I don't see why
the mmio passthrough needs its own interface to the p2m at all.)
Untested but obvious fix attached.
Signed-off-by: Tim Deegan <Tim.Deegan@xxxxxxxxxx>
Tim.
--
Tim Deegan <Tim.Deegan@xxxxxxxxxx>
Principal Software Engineer, Citrix Systems (R&D) Ltd.
[Company #02300071, SL9 0DZ, UK.]
p2m-lock
Description: Text document
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
|
|
| |
|
Home