[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] arch: arm: vgic-v3: fix GICD_ISACTIVER range
Hi Julien,
Inline marked with [Peng Fan]
From: Julien Grall <julien.grall.oss@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 2019年11月9日 6:44
To: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>; Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@xxxxxxx>
Cc: Peng Fan <peng.fan@xxxxxxx>; Jürgen Groß <jgross@xxxxxxxx>; julien.grall@xxxxxxx; xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] arch: arm: vgic-v3: fix GICD_ISACTIVER range
Hi,
Sorry for the formatting.
On Sat, 9 Nov 2019, 04:27 Stefano Stabellini, <mailto:sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 7 Nov 2019, Peng Fan wrote:
> The end should be GICD_ISACTIVERN not GICD_ISACTIVER.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <mailto:peng.fan@xxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Stefano Stabellini <mailto:sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>
To be honest, I am not sure the code is correct. A read to those registers should tell you the list of interrupts active. As we always return 0, this will not return the correct state of the GIC.
I know that returning the list of actives interrupts is complicated with the old vGIC, but I don't think silently ignoring it is a good idea.
The question here is why the guest accessed those registers? What is it trying to figure out?
[Peng Fan] I am running Linux 5.4 kernel dom0, gic_peek_irq triggers abort.
Do you have a call stack trace for this?
Cheers,
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
|
