On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 02:37:24PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 29/05/2020 14:26, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > TBH I would just remove the error message on Arm from the current
> > hypercall, I don't think it's useful.
> The message is part of the helpers get_page_from_gva() which is
> On 29 May 2020, at 15:15, Julien Grall wrote:
>
>
>
> On 29/05/2020 15:02, Bertrand Marquis wrote:
>>> On 29 May 2020, at 10:43, Julien Grall wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Bertrand,
>>>
>>> On 29/05/2020 09:13, Bertrand Marquis wrote:
Hi Julien,
> On 28 May 2020, at 19:54, Julien Grall
On 29/05/2020 15:02, Bertrand Marquis wrote:
On 29 May 2020, at 10:43, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Bertrand,
On 29/05/2020 09:13, Bertrand Marquis wrote:
Hi Julien,
On 28 May 2020, at 19:54, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Bertrand,
Thank you for the patch.
On 28/05/2020 16:25, Bertrand Marquis
> On 29 May 2020, at 10:43, Julien Grall wrote:
>
> Hi Bertrand,
>
> On 29/05/2020 09:13, Bertrand Marquis wrote:
>> Hi Julien,
>>> On 28 May 2020, at 19:54, Julien Grall wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Bertrand,
>>>
>>> Thank you for the patch.
>>>
>>> On 28/05/2020 16:25, Bertrand Marquis wrote:
> On 29 May 2020, at 10:27, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 09:18:42AM +, Bertrand Marquis wrote:
>> Hi Jan,
>>
>>> On 29 May 2020, at 09:45, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>
>>> On 29.05.2020 10:13, Bertrand Marquis wrote:
> On 28 May 2020, at 19:54, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi,
On 29/05/2020 14:26, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
TBH I would just remove the error message on Arm from the current
hypercall, I don't think it's useful.
The message is part of the helpers get_page_from_gva() which is also
used by copy_{to, from}_guest. While it may not be useful in the context
On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 08:32:51AM +, Bertrand Marquis wrote:
> Hi Jan
>
> > On 29 May 2020, at 08:35, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >
> > On 28.05.2020 20:54, Julien Grall wrote:
> >> On 28/05/2020 16:25, Bertrand Marquis wrote:
> >>> At the moment on Arm, a Linux guest running with KTPI enabled
On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 11:59:40AM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi Jan,
>
> On 29/05/2020 08:35, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > On 28.05.2020 20:54, Julien Grall wrote:
> > > On 28/05/2020 16:25, Bertrand Marquis wrote:
> > > > At the moment on Arm, a Linux guest running with KTPI enabled will
> > > >
Hi Jan,
On 29/05/2020 08:35, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 28.05.2020 20:54, Julien Grall wrote:
On 28/05/2020 16:25, Bertrand Marquis wrote:
At the moment on Arm, a Linux guest running with KTPI enabled will
cause the following error when a context switch happens in user mode:
(XEN) p2m.c:1890:
Hi,
On 29/05/2020 10:18, Bertrand Marquis wrote:
On 29 May 2020, at 09:45, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 29.05.2020 10:13, Bertrand Marquis wrote:
On 28 May 2020, at 19:54, Julien Grall wrote:
AFAICT, there is no restriction on when the runstate hypercall can be called.
So this can even be called
On Fri, 2020-05-29 at 08:13 +, Bertrand Marquis wrote:
> Hi Julien,
>
> > On 28 May 2020, at 19:54, Julien Grall wrote:
> >
> > Hi Bertrand,
> >
> > Thank you for the patch.
> >
> > On 28/05/2020 16:25, Bertrand Marquis wrote:
> > > At the moment on Arm, a Linux guest running with KTPI
Hi Bertrand,
On 29/05/2020 09:13, Bertrand Marquis wrote:
Hi Julien,
On 28 May 2020, at 19:54, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Bertrand,
Thank you for the patch.
On 28/05/2020 16:25, Bertrand Marquis wrote:
At the moment on Arm, a Linux guest running with KTPI enabled will
cause the following
On 29.05.2020 11:18, Bertrand Marquis wrote:
> Hi Jan,
>
>> On 29 May 2020, at 09:45, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>
>> On 29.05.2020 10:13, Bertrand Marquis wrote:
On 28 May 2020, at 19:54, Julien Grall wrote:
AFAICT, there is no restriction on when the runstate hypercall can be
called.
On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 09:18:42AM +, Bertrand Marquis wrote:
> Hi Jan,
>
> > On 29 May 2020, at 09:45, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >
> > On 29.05.2020 10:13, Bertrand Marquis wrote:
> >>> On 28 May 2020, at 19:54, Julien Grall wrote:
> >>> AFAICT, there is no restriction on when the runstate
Hi Jan,
> On 29 May 2020, at 09:45, Jan Beulich wrote:
>
> On 29.05.2020 10:13, Bertrand Marquis wrote:
>>> On 28 May 2020, at 19:54, Julien Grall wrote:
>>> AFAICT, there is no restriction on when the runstate hypercall can be
>>> called. So this can even be called before the vCPU is brought
On 29.05.2020 10:13, Bertrand Marquis wrote:
>> On 28 May 2020, at 19:54, Julien Grall wrote:
>> AFAICT, there is no restriction on when the runstate hypercall can be
>> called. So this can even be called before the vCPU is brought up.
>
> I understand the remark but it still feels very weird
On 29.05.2020 10:32, Bertrand Marquis wrote:
> So the only way to solve the KPTI issue would actually be to create a new
> hypercall and keep the current bug/problem ?
That's my view on it at least, yes.
Jan
Hi Jan
> On 29 May 2020, at 08:35, Jan Beulich wrote:
>
> On 28.05.2020 20:54, Julien Grall wrote:
>> On 28/05/2020 16:25, Bertrand Marquis wrote:
>>> At the moment on Arm, a Linux guest running with KTPI enabled will
>>> cause the following error when a context switch happens in user mode:
>>>
> On 29 May 2020, at 08:19, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 07:54:35PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
>> Hi Bertrand,
>>
>> Thank you for the patch.
>>
>> On 28/05/2020 16:25, Bertrand Marquis wrote:
>>> +static int map_runstate_area(struct vcpu *v,
>>> +
> On 28 May 2020, at 20:12, Julien Grall wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 28/05/2020 18:19, Bertrand Marquis wrote:
+
+return 0;
+}
+
int domain_kill(struct domain *d)
{
int rc = 0;
@@ -727,7 +788,10 @@ int domain_kill(struct domain *d)
if (
Hi Julien,
> On 28 May 2020, at 19:54, Julien Grall wrote:
>
> Hi Bertrand,
>
> Thank you for the patch.
>
> On 28/05/2020 16:25, Bertrand Marquis wrote:
>> At the moment on Arm, a Linux guest running with KTPI enabled will
>> cause the following error when a context switch happens in user
On 28.05.2020 20:54, Julien Grall wrote:
> On 28/05/2020 16:25, Bertrand Marquis wrote:
>> At the moment on Arm, a Linux guest running with KTPI enabled will
>> cause the following error when a context switch happens in user mode:
>> (XEN) p2m.c:1890: d1v0: Failed to walk page-table va
On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 07:54:35PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi Bertrand,
>
> Thank you for the patch.
>
> On 28/05/2020 16:25, Bertrand Marquis wrote:
> > +static int map_runstate_area(struct vcpu *v,
> > +struct vcpu_register_runstate_memory_area *area)
> > +{
> > +
Hi,
On 28/05/2020 18:19, Bertrand Marquis wrote:
+
+return 0;
+}
+
int domain_kill(struct domain *d)
{
int rc = 0;
@@ -727,7 +788,10 @@ int domain_kill(struct domain *d)
if ( cpupool_move_domain(d, cpupool0) )
return -ERESTART;
for_each_vcpu ( d, v )
+
Hi Bertrand,
Thank you for the patch.
On 28/05/2020 16:25, Bertrand Marquis wrote:
At the moment on Arm, a Linux guest running with KTPI enabled will
cause the following error when a context switch happens in user mode:
(XEN) p2m.c:1890: d1v0: Failed to walk page-table va 0xff837ebe0cd0
> On 28 May 2020, at 17:53, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 04:25:31PM +0100, Bertrand Marquis wrote:
>> At the moment on Arm, a Linux guest running with KTPI enabled will
>> cause the following error when a context switch happens in user mode:
>> (XEN) p2m.c:1890: d1v0:
On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 04:25:31PM +0100, Bertrand Marquis wrote:
> At the moment on Arm, a Linux guest running with KTPI enabled will
> cause the following error when a context switch happens in user mode:
> (XEN) p2m.c:1890: d1v0: Failed to walk page-table va 0xff837ebe0cd0
>
> This patch
At the moment on Arm, a Linux guest running with KTPI enabled will
cause the following error when a context switch happens in user mode:
(XEN) p2m.c:1890: d1v0: Failed to walk page-table va 0xff837ebe0cd0
This patch is modifying runstate handling to map the area given by the
guest inside Xen
28 matches
Mail list logo
