(sorry for the formatting) On Thu, 7 Feb 2019, 11:37 Roger Pau Monné, <roger....@citrix.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 07, 2019 at 11:42:16AM +0200, Andrii Anisov wrote: > > Hello All, > > > > On 06.02.19 23:03, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > > That's great. Could you or Roger take care of cleaning up the patch and > > > properly submitting it to the list? > > > > I can take it for cleaning up. > > > > > And also double check that it won't > > > break any guests (at least the ones we know about: Linux and Windows on > > > x86). > > > > I'm not sure I could properly check it for x86. For sure can't do that > for windows guest. > > I've been thinking about this with other Citrix folks, and I'm not > sure the proposed patch is a good solution. It's not possible for us > to know whether there's a kernel somewhere relying on changing the > virtual address of the runtime state area without issuing a new > hypercall. > > If such kernel existed by making this change we would introduce random > memory corruption to that kernel, which would be very hard to track > and considered a regression. > > I think the best way to move forward is to pick my patch and introduce > a new hypercall that instead of a virtual address takes a guest > physical address. Will you be OK with this Andrii > In that case I would prefer if we don't keep the runstate mapped. Cheers,
_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
