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

[Tim Deegan <tim@xxxxxxx>]

At 07:33 +0100 on 27 Aug (1409121231), Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> 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.

My apologies for that; I hope to have some time tomorrow to review this
thread properly.

Tim.

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