Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH]: Fix Xen domU boot with batched mprotect

[Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx>]

Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx> 16.10.08 18:10 >>>
> > > >         
> > The current x86-64 implementation is:
> >
> > bool __virt_addr_valid(unsigned long x)
> > {
> >         if (x >= __START_KERNEL_map) {
> >                 x -= __START_KERNEL_map;
> >                 if (x >= KERNEL_IMAGE_SIZE)
> >                         return false;
> >     
> This, imo, is still broken (i.e. the name of the function still isn't matched
> by the implementation): KERNEL_IMAGE_SIZE is a constant and doesn't
> account for the fact that only the real kernel image can be relied upon
> to be mapped.
>   
Perhaps, but I don't think it matters too much.  Unless you have a tiny 
amount of physical memory, locations in the kernel mapping beyond the 
actual kernel will still resolve to proper locations in the linear map.
> > and 32-bit is similar (but simpler, since it doesn't need to worry about a 
> > separate kernel mapping).
> >     
> This continues to be broken, but not as badly as it used to be - while it
> now covers user space and the vmalloc area (I'm unclear why this is
> excluded only after booting completed, though), hypervisor space
> continues to not be considered here.
>
> But as mentioned before - excluding the vmalloc area seems bogus wrt
> the name of the function, but as I take it the confusion here is intended.
>   
I think a strictly correct name for the function would be 
can_i_use___pa_on_this_address(vaddr).  It isn't 
is_this_really_an_addressable_location(vaddr).
   J

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel