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


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

To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [RFC] [PATCH] xen, vtd: Check ownership of a domain context using internal structures
From: George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 11:30:12 +0100
Cc: Jiang Yunhong <yunhong.jiang@xxxxxxxxx>, Keir Fraser <keir@xxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 03:31:09 -0700
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Fd90ouorwaoCXlImPFqF1PDrdSmQDBhCRuhzcVot0IY=; b=YNgNa/8cSVAR0jaqCkGggt04un/NqsxgBWiTGrzpUxpyPF9Y9bddLuNngJu+HJMnDg mzN+bVoT6k3PG3THauXf3bCEehNWf3r5CC8vuD1hKAjrrLA86AMLFy4ESBjry6OA4JwV biYRdHFzipolX1mHvKTzxP45FxKq1Kw/cuk6o=
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <4E31AEEE0200007800073C27@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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> <4E31AEEE0200007800073C27@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thanks, Jan.

BTW Keir: this particular instance of the patch caused the customer's
dom0 to crash on boot, so it's not ready to be applied yet.  (Oh the
joys of fixing a bug for a system you don't have on-site.)  I'll send
a new patch when I have one that works properly.


On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 6:48 PM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> 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.
> Jan
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

Xen-devel mailing list