WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

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/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] x86-64 machine_to_phys vs NX bit

To: Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] x86-64 machine_to_phys vs NX bit
From: Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 11:19:21 -0400
Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Nakajima, Jun" <jun.nakajima@xxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 08:19:58 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <C114D189.15C0%Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
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/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Organization: Red Hat, Inc
References: <C114D189.15C0%Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (X11/20060614)
Keir Fraser wrote:


On 25/8/06 3:46 pm, "Nakajima, Jun" <jun.nakajima@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I agree, and I'm wondering why we don't have the same problem on i386?
To me it basically does the same thing.

A long is only 32 bits there, so when we pass the MFN portion the NX bit is
conveniently truncated away!

Which means it'll do the wrong thing for machine addresses > 4GB
on PAE, or am I overlooking something?

--
What is important?  What you want to be true, or what is true?

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel