[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] Question: dom0 electrocuted by implicitly unmapped grantrefs


  • To: Daniel Stodden <daniel.stodden@xxxxxxxxxx>, Xen Developers <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • From: Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 22:52:31 +0000
  • Cc:
  • Delivery-date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 14:53:01 -0800
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
  • Thread-index: AcpsjoR8JXz0QDbmR8OsemNTwKhgtgAAR7Zc
  • Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] Question: dom0 electrocuted by implicitly unmapped grantrefs

On 23/11/2009 22:43, "Daniel Stodden" <daniel.stodden@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> I assume 'implicitly unmapped' therein refers to a case where rd is gone
> because ld in some or the other way already managed to tear down a
> mapping without an exlicit gnttab call? This correct? Otherwise killing
> ld would seem a bit rough to me :}

You are correct.

> Either way: is domain_crash(ld) the appropriate response? Why not just
> fail the op and let the caller live and learn?

It's arguable I suppose. An implicitly unmapped grant leaves a grant entry
which cannot be released until the mapping domain dies. It's a nasty kind of
leak, and I made the hypervisor's response to it suitably abrupt.

 -- Keir



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


 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.