This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
Home Products Support Community News


Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC] x86: possible problem with guest_walk_tables()

>>> On 21.03.11 at 14:57, Tim Deegan <Tim.Deegan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> At 13:10 +0000 on 21 Mar (1300713029), Jan Beulich wrote:
>> Yes, if this is really only GFN space, then it would "just" result in
>> bad translations getting installed, possibly conflicting with others
>> (e.g. in cache attributes).
> Yep; that's no worse that anything else a guest can do. I'm pretty sure
> no guest installs unaligned PAE entries and then tries to use them. (The
> only case I _know_ of where the OS relies on h/w to enforce invalid-bit 
> detection is Xen itself).

... and luckily Xen itself no longer runs on non-PAE (so this doesn't
become an issue with nested virtualization).

>> Leaving aside the non-PAE case, does the fix presented look
>> reasonable?
> Yes, it looks correct to me.  Give me a Signed-off-by and I'll apply it. 

Going with the page-fault-less case then for non-PAE? If we want
that case to produce reserved bit faults too, I admit I'd prefer to
submit a complete patch (which is half the reason why this was an
RFC, non-signed-off one)... If we want no fault there, I'd like to
comment that way in the code (so the or-ing with zero won't
prompt later readers to wonder whether this isn't a bug/oversight).


Xen-devel mailing list