>>> On 13.11.18 at 11:59, <paul.durr...@citrix.com> wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:jbeul...@suse.com] >> Sent: 13 November 2018 10:47 >> To: xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org> >> Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com>; Paul Durrant >> <paul.durr...@citrix.com>; Wei Liu <wei.l...@citrix.com>; Tim (Xen.org) >> <t...@xen.org> >> Subject: [PATCH 5/3] x86/shadow: emulate_gva_to_mfn() should respect >> p2m_ioreq_server >> >> Writes to such pages would need to be handed to the emulator, which we're >> not prepared to do at this point. >> >> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> >> >> --- a/xen/arch/x86/mm/shadow/hvm.c >> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm/shadow/hvm.c >> @@ -338,7 +338,7 @@ static mfn_t emulate_gva_to_mfn(struct v >> { >> return _mfn(BAD_GFN_TO_MFN); >> } >> - if ( p2m_is_discard_write(p2mt) ) >> + if ( p2m_is_discard_write(p2mt) || p2mt == p2m_ioreq_server ) >> { >> put_page(page); >> return _mfn(READONLY_GFN); > > Is this what we want here? I would have thought we want to return > BAD_GFN_TO_MFN in the p2m_ioreq_server case so that the caller treats this in > the same way it would MMIO.
I'm not sure which behavior is better; I'm certainly fine with switching as you say, but I'd first like to see Tim's opinion as well. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
