Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH RFC v2 1/4] x86/mm: Shadow and p2m changes for PV mem_access

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 27.08.14 at 00:27, <aravindp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> 2. The "CR0.WP with interrupts disabled" solution is not viable because of
>>> NMIs. Or did I misunderstand?
>>
>>For this second option, NMIs are a concern. Whether that makes it
>>not viable I'm not certain. We really need to weigh benefits and risks
>>here, and from a project wide perspective I'm currently viewing the
> 
> From what I can tell, Andrew does think that this route is a viable option 
> and I will defer to you and him about this. If there is agreement that this 
> approach is acceptable, I will send out another version of the patches 
> implementing it.

Yes, I think you should go ahead with this, understanding that there's
no promise (just reasonable likelihood) to take it in the end. It's kind of
unfortunate that Tim currently has very little time to spend on voicing
his opinion here.

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel