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] Critical bug: VT-d fault causes disk corruption or Dom0

To: "Cihula, Joseph" <joseph.cihula@xxxxxxxxx>, "Kay, Allen M" <allen.m.kay@xxxxxxxxx>, "Li, Xin" <xin.li@xxxxxxxxx>, "Li, Haicheng" <haicheng.li@xxxxxxxxx>, "'xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Critical bug: VT-d fault causes disk corruption or Dom0 kernel panic.
From: Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2009 19:58:45 +0000
Cc:
Delivery-date: Sat, 24 Jan 2009 11:58:50 -0800
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <4F65016F6CB04E49BFFA15D4F7B798D98B0AFC20@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: Acl8Q3YVs3niaMuxT1CPWgfSc0ZGCwAITqg5AAKyJXAAAOMrHgAfiHegABEJqTgAEqyPIAACkS3lAAAS7KQACh68wAAUUrk8AABj1zsAFA9jMAACAX53
Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] Critical bug: VT-d fault causes disk corruption or Dom0 kernel panic.
User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.15.0.081119
On 24/01/2009 19:07, "Cihula, Joseph" <joseph.cihula@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Since the tboot memory is marked as reserved or unusable, the tboot_in_range()
> call is no longer needed.  Do you want me to add that to my patch set?

I'll remove it.

> You've used a call to memory_is_conventional_ram() to check whether the page
> is in non-reserved RAM, but in looking at the function (below), I don't see
> how the '(e820.map[i].size > p)' test is valid--shouldn't it be
> '((e820.map[i].addr + e820.map[i].size) > p)'?

Yeah, that makes no sense. I'll fix it. Thanks.

 -- Keir



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