On Tue, 12 Oct 2021 13:00:40 +0100, Andrew Jones <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 12:23:12PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > > We currently check SCTLR_EL1.EE when computing the address of > > a faulting guest access. However, the fault could have occured at > > EL0, in which case the right bit to check would be SCTLR_EL1.E0E. > > > > This is pretty unlikely to cause any issue in practice: You'd have > > to have a guest with a LE EL1 and a BE EL0 (or the other way around), > > and have mapped a device into the EL0 page tables. > > I wonder if that's something a usermode network driver might want?
I don't know what it wants, but I don't want it the first place! Think of what a kernel would need to do to run its userspace in a different endianness... Userspace device access is just an additional headache. Whoever does this needs urgent medical attention! > Reviewed-by: Andrew Jones <[email protected]> Thanks, M. -- Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible. _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
