On 08.02.2024 05:32, George Dunlap wrote: > Er, ok, just one more comment: this could allow an altp2m to have more > permissions than the host; for example, the host p2m entry could be > p2m_access_r, but if the altp2m's default_access were p2m_access_rw, > it would override that. Is that the behavior we want? Or do we want > to do some sort of intersection of permissions? > > If the former, I'd propose the comment be adjusted thus: > > * If the entry is invalid, and the host entry was valid, propagate > * the host's entry to the altp2m, retaining page order but using the > * altp2m's default_access, and indicate that the caller should re-try > * the faulting instruction.
I find it highly questionable that such blind overriding should be taking place. Jan
