Hi Andrew,
On 16/05/17 18:12, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 16/05/17 18:06, Tim Deegan wrote:
At 17:51 +0100 on 16 May (1494957116), Andrew Cooper wrote:
c/s 4c5d78a10 was accidentally buggy when handling Protection Keys.
Protection keys applies to all user translations, not just accesses which
orig
>>> On 16.05.17 at 18:51, wrote:
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/mm/guest_walk.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm/guest_walk.c
> @@ -408,7 +408,7 @@ guest_walk_tables(struct vcpu *v, struct p2m_domain *p2m,
> * N.B. In the case that the walk ended with a superpage, the fabricated
> * gw->l1e contains the
On 16/05/17 18:06, Tim Deegan wrote:
> At 17:51 +0100 on 16 May (1494957116), Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> c/s 4c5d78a10 was accidentally buggy when handling Protection Keys.
>> Protection keys applies to all user translations, not just accesses which
>> originate from user mode.
> Reviewed-by: Tim Deeg
At 17:51 +0100 on 16 May (1494957116), Andrew Cooper wrote:
> c/s 4c5d78a10 was accidentally buggy when handling Protection Keys.
> Protection keys applies to all user translations, not just accesses which
> originate from user mode.
Reviewed-by: Tim Deegan
Does the test for write-protection jus
c/s 4c5d78a10 was accidentally buggy when handling Protection Keys.
Protection keys applies to all user translations, not just accesses which
originate from user mode.
Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper
---
CC: Jan Beulich
CC: Tim Deegan
CC: George Dunlap
CC: Julien Grall
This regression was intro
