[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH V1 10/16] xen/mm: Handle properly reference in set_foreign_p2m_entry() on Arm
- To: Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
- From: Oleksandr <olekstysh@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 20:30:41 +0300
- Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Oleksandr Tyshchenko <oleksandr_tyshchenko@xxxxxxxx>, Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>, Volodymyr Babchuk <Volodymyr_Babchuk@xxxxxxxx>, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx>, Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Wei Liu <wl@xxxxxxx>, Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>, Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 17:30:48 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
On 16.09.20 11:55, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Julien, Jan
On 16/09/2020 09:52, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 16.09.2020 10:50, Julien Grall wrote:
On 16/09/2020 08:17, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 10.09.2020 22:22, Oleksandr Tyshchenko wrote:
for ( i = 0; !rc && i < xmar.nr_frames; i++ )
{
- rc = set_foreign_p2m_entry(currd, gfn_list[i],
+ rc = set_foreign_p2m_entry(currd, d, gfn_list[i],
_mfn(mfn_list[i]));
Is it going to lead to proper behavior when d == currd, specifically
for Arm but also in the abstract model? If you expose this to other
than Dom0, this case needs at least considering (and hence mentioning
in the description of why it's safe to permit if you don't reject
such attempts).
This is already rejected by rcu_lock_remote_domain_by_id().
Oh, yes, I'm sorry for overlooking this.
That's fine, I also overlooked it when I originally wrote the code.
@oleksandr, it might be worth mentioning in the commit message and
maybe in the code this subtlety.
Yes, will do.
Also the following will be taken into the account:
1. Implement arch_refcounts_p2m()
2. Move function declaration to xen/p2m-common.h
3. Add const to new parameter
--
Regards,
Oleksandr Tyshchenko
|
