[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v1] Fix p2m_set_suppress_ve
On 4/3/19 6:30 PM, Jan Beulich wrote: On 03.04.19 at 17:17, <rcojocaru@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:On 4/3/19 5:58 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:On 03.04.19 at 16:29, <aisaila@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:--- a/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m.c +++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m.c @@ -3011,8 +3011,16 @@ int p2m_set_suppress_ve(struct domain *d, gfn_t gfn, bool suppress_ve, mfn = p2m->get_entry(p2m, gfn, &t, &a, 0, NULL, NULL); if ( !mfn_valid(mfn) ) { - rc = -ESRCH; - goto out; + unsigned int page_order; + + mfn = __get_gfn_type_access(host_p2m, gfn_x(gfn), &t, &a, + P2M_ALLOC | P2M_UNSHARE, &page_order, 0);I'm not entirely certain about P2M_ALLOC, but I'm pretty sure that at least P2M_UNSHARE is too heavy: Why would you want to force un-sharing of a page when all you want to alter is #VE behavior?That logic was taken from p2m_set_altp2m_mem_access(), we thought the two cases are very similar.I see. On the UNSHARE observation, we don't know why the author originally requested the flag. We decided to keep it on the assumption that it _probably_ handles some corner-case that somebody has come accross. We'll prepare a mini-series factoring out the code we've been discussing in separate functions: one for getting things out of the hostp2m if the entry is not present in the altp2m, and one for the special page-order-dependent code (which is duplicated in p2m_set_altp2m_mem_access() and p2m_change_altp2m_gfn()). Before going into that, are we now certain that ALLOC is sufficient? I believe it should be for _our_ use-cases, but we don't want to break anyone's code. Maybe Tamas knows more about this. Thanks, Razvan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |