Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 1/2] kexec: use hypercall_create_continuation to protect KEXEC ops

[Daniel Kiper <daniel.kiper@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 12:48:56PM +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 19/04/17 12:00, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 04:48:06AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>>>> On 17.04.17 at 21:09, <eric.devolder@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>> --- a/xen/common/kexec.c
> >>> +++ b/xen/common/kexec.c
> >>> @@ -50,9 +50,10 @@ static cpumask_t crash_saved_cpus;
> >>>
> >>>  static struct kexec_image *kexec_image[KEXEC_IMAGE_NR];
> >>>
> >>> -#define KEXEC_FLAG_DEFAULT_POS   (KEXEC_IMAGE_NR + 0)
> >>> -#define KEXEC_FLAG_CRASH_POS     (KEXEC_IMAGE_NR + 1)
> >>> -#define KEXEC_FLAG_IN_PROGRESS   (KEXEC_IMAGE_NR + 2)
> >>> +#define KEXEC_FLAG_DEFAULT_POS    (KEXEC_IMAGE_NR + 0)
> >>> +#define KEXEC_FLAG_CRASH_POS      (KEXEC_IMAGE_NR + 1)
> >>> +#define KEXEC_FLAG_IN_PROGRESS    (KEXEC_IMAGE_NR + 2)
> >>> +#define KEXEC_FLAG_HC_IN_PROGRESS (KEXEC_IMAGE_NR + 3)
> >> Perhaps KEXEC_FLAG_IN_HYPERCALL? Other than that (and this
> > Make sense for me.
>
> Agreed.  (I can fix on commit).
>
> >
> >> clearly is subject to Andrew's opinion)
> >> Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
> > Otherwise Reviewed-by: Daniel Kiper <daniel.kiper@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Reviewed-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> CC'ing Julien.  This is clearly a good bugfix for 4.9

Yep and I think that it is stable material too.

Daniel

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel