Re: [Xen-devel] 2nd opinion on backportability of c35eefded2

>>> On 18.05.16 at 16:41, wrote: > On 13/05/16 10:32, Jan Beulich wrote: >> Hi George, >> >> after quite a bit of debugging on 4.6.1 I learned that said commit >> ("x86/P2M: consolidate handling of types not requiring a valid MFN") >> is more than just cleanup: Since

Re: [Xen-devel] 2nd opinion on backportability of c35eefded2

On 13/05/16 10:32, Jan Beulich wrote: > Hi George, > > after quite a bit of debugging on 4.6.1 I learned that said commit > ("x86/P2M: consolidate handling of types not requiring a valid MFN") > is more than just cleanup: Since p2m_set_entry() happily performs > arithmetic on the passed in MFN,

[Xen-devel] 2nd opinion on backportability of c35eefded2

Hi George, after quite a bit of debugging on 4.6.1 I learned that said commit ("x86/P2M: consolidate handling of types not requiring a valid MFN") is more than just cleanup: Since p2m_set_entry() happily performs arithmetic on the passed in MFN, shadow mode guests (verified) as well as HAP ones