On Tue, 2011-04-12 at 14:09 +0100, Keir Fraser wrote:
> On 12/04/2011 13:31, "Stephen Smalley" <sds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2011-03-21 at 14:57 -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> >> This is an attempt to properly fix the hypervisor crash previously
> >> described in
> >> http://marc.info/?l=xen-devel&m=128396289707362&w=2
> >> In looking into this issue, I think the proper fix is to move the
> >> xsm_mmu_* and xsm_update_va_mapping hook calls later in the callers,
> >> after more validation has been performed and the page_info struct is
> >> readily available, and pass the page_info to the hooks. This patch moves
> >> the xsm_mmu_normal_update, xsm_mmu_machphys_update and
> >> xsm_update_va_mapping hook calls accordingly, and updates their
> >> interfaces and hook function implementations. This appears to resolve
> >> the crashes for me. However, as I am not overly familiar with this area
> >> of code, I'd appreciate any feedback or suggestions for improvement.
> >> Signed-off-by: Stephen Smalley <sds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Zero replies after two postings. Should I retry, abort, or fail?
> > Seriously though - if there is something wrong with this patch, then let
> > me know, and if not, can it get applied sometime?
> Hi Stephen,
> The patch was posted as RFC with no signed-off-by. The patch looks fine to
> me as far as I understand it. Provide a Signed-off-by line and I'll append
> it to the patch description and apply it.
Not to quibble, but I did drop the RFC and added my Signed-off-by when I
posted it the second time (see above). The original got posted as an
RFC because it was during the 4.1 freeze, and then I reposted the patch
as an actual submission once the tree was branched and unfrozen.
> You can send these kinds of patches without the RFC tag by the way, unless
> you want to give the opportunity for other NSA people to possibly do review
> via the public list.
National Security Agency
Xen-devel mailing list