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-ia64-devel

Re: [Xen-ia64-devel] EFI Mapping Windows Install Crash Bug

On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 12:31:20PM +0900, Isaku Yamahata wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 02, 2008 at 05:20:48PM +1000, Simon Horman wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 02, 2008 at 04:20:33PM +1000, Simon Horman wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 01, 2008 at 09:19:24PM +0900, Isaku Yamahata wrote:
> > 
> > [snip]
> > 
> > > > As I'm reviewing the patches, I noticed only xen/arch/ia64/xen/ivt.S
> > > > is patched, but xen/arch/ia64/xen/vmx_ivt.S isn't patched.
> > > > Isn't it necessary to similar change to vmx_ivt.S?
> > > 
> > > [ As per our discussion off-line. ]
> > > 
> > > That is a good question, and one that I wasn't aware of until
> > > you brought it up. I think that the answer is likely no, as
> > > else the code would be very broken, and as it is it does work
> > > most of the time. However, this could just be by chance - for
> > > instance the TLB might be seeded with entries it needs. I
> > > will look into this further.
> > 
> > Hi Yamahata-san,
> > 
> > I believe that the answer to this question is no,
> > there is no need to update the VMX page fault handlers.
> > 
> > As the VHPT is turned off when the EFI RR is active
> > the only page fault handlers that are relevant are
> > vmx_alt_dtlb_miss and vmx_alt_itlb_miss - and emprically
> > from my experience with the non-VMX page fault handlers,
> > itlb misses never occur.
> > 
> > In any case, both vmx_alt_dtlb_miss and vmx_alt_itlb_miss
> > employ the following logic in order to tetermine the
> > physical address (pa) of a faulting address (ifa).
> > 
> > #define IA64_MAX_PHYS_BITS      50
> > pa = ifa & (((1 << IA64_MAX_PHYS_BITS) - 1) & ~0xfff)
> > 
> > The case that we are concerned with is when the ifa
> > looks like 0xe... or 0xc... instead of a normal Xen
> > virtual address which looks like 0xf...
> > 
> > However, the logic above covers all of these cases,
> > and thus the VMX page fault handlers can already
> > identity map EFI memory.
> 
> 
> Yes basically sounds correct.
> It looks like the EFI UC area case isn't handled properly.
> What do you think?

That looks correct to me. I will run some tests with it applied.

_______________________________________________
Xen-ia64-devel mailing list
Xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ia64-devel