Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] RFC x86/hvm: Don't truncate the hvm hypercall index before range checking it

2016-10-27 Thread Jan Beulich
>>> On 27.10.16 at 14:55, wrote: > On 27/10/16 08:12, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 26.10.16 at 20:19, wrote: >>> On 24/10/16 12:13, Jan Beulich wrote: >>> On 24.10.16 at 12:25, wrote: > Yes we very much are

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] RFC x86/hvm: Don't truncate the hvm hypercall index before range checking it

2016-10-27 Thread Andrew Cooper
On 27/10/16 08:12, Jan Beulich wrote: On 26.10.16 at 20:19, wrote: >> On 24/10/16 12:13, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 24.10.16 at 12:25, wrote: Yes we very much are at liberty to change things. Viridian would not function

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] RFC x86/hvm: Don't truncate the hvm hypercall index before range checking it

2016-10-27 Thread Jan Beulich
>>> On 26.10.16 at 20:19, wrote: > On 24/10/16 12:13, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 24.10.16 at 12:25, wrote: >>> Yes we very much are at liberty to change things. Viridian would not >>> function without using that page (as the hypercalls

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] RFC x86/hvm: Don't truncate the hvm hypercall index before range checking it

2016-10-26 Thread Andrew Cooper
On 24/10/16 12:13, Jan Beulich wrote: On 24.10.16 at 12:25, wrote: >> On 24/10/16 11:09, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 24.10.16 at 11:55, wrote: On 24/10/16 10:33, Jan Beulich wrote: On 14.10.16 at 17:51,

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] RFC x86/hvm: Don't truncate the hvm hypercall index before range checking it

2016-10-24 Thread Jan Beulich
>>> On 24.10.16 at 12:25, wrote: > On 24/10/16 11:09, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 24.10.16 at 11:55, wrote: >>> On 24/10/16 10:33, Jan Beulich wrote: >>> On 14.10.16 at 17:51, wrote: > When the compat

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] RFC x86/hvm: Don't truncate the hvm hypercall index before range checking it

2016-10-24 Thread Andrew Cooper
On 24/10/16 11:09, Jan Beulich wrote: On 24.10.16 at 11:55, wrote: >> On 24/10/16 10:33, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 14.10.16 at 17:51, wrote: When the compat hypercall ABI was added for HVM guests (i.e. supporting 32bit

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] RFC x86/hvm: Don't truncate the hvm hypercall index before range checking it

2016-10-24 Thread Jan Beulich
>>> On 24.10.16 at 11:55, wrote: > On 24/10/16 10:33, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 14.10.16 at 17:51, wrote: >>> When the compat hypercall ABI was added for HVM guests (i.e. supporting >>> 32bit >>> operating systems making hypercalls against

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] RFC x86/hvm: Don't truncate the hvm hypercall index before range checking it

2016-10-24 Thread Andrew Cooper
On 24/10/16 10:33, Jan Beulich wrote: On 14.10.16 at 17:51, wrote: >> When the compat hypercall ABI was added for HVM guests (i.e. supporting 32bit >> operating systems making hypercalls against a 64bit Xen), an ABI breakage was >> introduced for non-compat guests,

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] RFC x86/hvm: Don't truncate the hvm hypercall index before range checking it

2016-10-24 Thread Jan Beulich
>>> On 14.10.16 at 17:51, wrote: > When the compat hypercall ABI was added for HVM guests (i.e. supporting 32bit > operating systems making hypercalls against a 64bit Xen), an ABI breakage was > introduced for non-compat guests, as the 64bit hypercall index became >

[Xen-devel] [PATCH] RFC x86/hvm: Don't truncate the hvm hypercall index before range checking it

2016-10-14 Thread Andrew Cooper
When the compat hypercall ABI was added for HVM guests (i.e. supporting 32bit operating systems making hypercalls against a 64bit Xen), an ABI breakage was introduced for non-compat guests, as the 64bit hypercall index became truncated to 32 bits. This has been the case for a very long time, but