[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH for-next 8/9] xen: Introduce HAS_M2P config and use to protect mfn_to_gmfn call
- To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>, Wei Liu <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx>, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- From: Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2019 18:42:47 +0100
- Cc: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>, "andrii_anisov@xxxxxxxx" <andrii_anisov@xxxxxxxx>, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx>, George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, Tim Deegan <tim@xxxxxxx>, oleksandr_tyshchenko@xxxxxxxx, xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Roger Pau Monne <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Wed, 17 Apr 2019 17:43:00 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
Hi,
@Wei, @Ian: Do you have any input?
On 14/03/2019 07:55, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 13.03.19 at 18:30, <julien.grall@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On 13/03/2019 15:20, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 18.02.19 at 12:35, <julien.grall@xxxxxxx> wrote:
--- a/xen/common/domctl.c
+++ b/xen/common/domctl.c
@@ -205,7 +205,7 @@ void getdomaininfo(struct domain *d, struct
xen_domctl_getdomaininfo *info)
info->outstanding_pages = d->outstanding_pages;
info->shr_pages = atomic_read(&d->shr_pages);
info->paged_pages = atomic_read(&d->paged_pages);
- info->shared_info_frame = mfn_to_gmfn(d, virt_to_mfn(d->shared_info));
+ info->shared_info_frame = gfn_x(domain_shared_info_gfn(d));
I think this change wants to be accompanied by a warning attached
to the field declaration in the public header.
Make sense.
But I'd also like to have the tool stack maintainers' view on making
this field effectively unusable for Arm.
The value in shared_info_frame was plain wrong since the creation of Xen Arm. So
this is just making the error more obvious. I don't expect any user of it on
Arm.
Well, my request for tool stack maintainer input wasn't to put under
question that the field can't currently be used sensibly on Arm.
Instead I'm meaning to know whether it can be sensibly expected
for the tool stack to want to use the field uniformly, in which case
rather than making it more obviously not work it should be fixed
instead.
Jan
--
Julien Grall
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
|
