On 17/04/15 16:20, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 17.04.15 at 17:11, <li...@eikelenboom.it> wrote:
>> Friday, April 17, 2015, 1:43:32 PM, you wrote:
>>> --- unstable.orig/xen/drivers/passthrough/amd/iommu_intr.c
>>> +++ unstable/xen/drivers/passthrough/amd/iommu_intr.c
>>> @@ -365,15 +365,17 @@ unsigned int amd_iommu_read_ioapic_from_
>>> unsigned int apic, unsigned int reg)
>>> {
>>> unsigned int val = __io_apic_read(apic, reg);
>>> + unsigned int pin = (reg - 0x10) / 2;
>>> + unsigned int offset = ioapic_sbdf[IO_APIC_ID(apic)].pin_2_idx[pin];
>>>
>>> - if ( !(reg & 1) )
>>> + if ( !(reg & 1) && offset < INTREMAP_ENTRIES )
>>> {
>>> - unsigned int offset = val & (INTREMAP_ENTRIES - 1);
>>> u16 bdf = ioapic_sbdf[IO_APIC_ID(apic)].bdf;
>>> u16 seg = ioapic_sbdf[IO_APIC_ID(apic)].seg;
>>> u16 req_id = get_intremap_requestor_id(seg, bdf);
>>> const u32 *entry = get_intremap_entry(seg, req_id, offset);
>>>
>>> + ASSERT(offset == (val & (INTREMAP_ENTRIES - 1)));
>>> val &= ~(INTREMAP_ENTRIES - 1);
>>> val |= get_field_from_reg_u32(*entry,
>>> INT_REMAP_ENTRY_INTTYPE_MASK,
>>
>> Hmmm can this patch or tim's patch make andrew's patch ineffective ?
> I can't see how either would.
Tim indicated that he thought my patch might be racy, so I might not be
surprised if a problem still exists.
~Andrew
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
