This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
Home Products Support Community News


[Xen-devel] Re: [RFC] [PATCH] xen, vtd: Check ownership of a domain cont

To: "George Dunlap" <George.Dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Xen-devel] Re: [RFC] [PATCH] xen, vtd: Check ownership of a domain context using internal structures
From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 18:48:14 +0100
Cc: Jiang Yunhong <yunhong.jiang@xxxxxxxxx>, Keir Fraser <keir@xxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 10:49:10 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <CAFLBxZatO6Pih1KcsVovs6g1o6Ux1fSUwGmS-xDmTQaTWf61uw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <CAFLBxZatO6Pih1KcsVovs6g1o6Ux1fSUwGmS-xDmTQaTWf61uw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> On 27.07.11 at 12:36, George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Keir, Jan, et al:
> Can you take a look at this patch to see if you think this is the
> right way to solve this problem?

Makes sense, and looks reasonable to me (though I'm far from being
a passthrough expert).

> This particular patch is still being tested by the partner who saw the
> problem; but a less safe change -- just returning "OK" if the pci
> device didn't exist -- did solve the problem.  It seemed like this
> check was probably there for a reason, so I wanted to keep it in
> place.  (Although the c/s in which this check was introduced,
> 18906:2941b1a9, only mentioned locking changes, not introduction of
> new checks.)

Yes, retaining the check is definitely needed.


Xen-devel mailing list