>>> On 24.06.15 at 19:15, <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote:
> On 22/06/15 15:47, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> Host uses of the bits will be added subsequently, and must not be
>> overridden by guests (including Dom0, namely when acting on behalf of
>> a guest).
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
>>
>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/msi.c
>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/msi.c
>> @@ -846,6 +846,12 @@ static int msix_capability_init(struct p
>>
>> if ( !msix->used_entries )
>> {
>> + msix->host_maskall = 0;
>> + if ( !msix->guest_maskall )
>> + control &= ~PCI_MSIX_FLAGS_MASKALL;
>> + else
>> + control |= PCI_MSIX_FLAGS_MASKALL;
>
> Is the guest (or hardware) in a position to influence guest_maskall at
> this point? I am not sure that it is.
Of course - via the cfg write intercept (i.e. the hunk immediately
following this one).
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
