* [PATCH] x86: drop a bogus SHARED_M2P() check from Dom0 building code
@ 2021-06-28 11:52 Jan Beulich
2021-07-06 7:37 ` Ping: " Jan Beulich
2021-09-21 7:54 ` Roger Pau Monné
0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Jan Beulich @ 2021-06-28 11:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: xen-devel; +Cc: Andrew Cooper, Wei Liu, Roger Pau Monné
If anything, a check covering a wider range of invalid M2P entries ought
to be used (e.g. VALID_M2P()). But since everything is fully under Xen's
control at this stage, simply remove the BUG_ON().
Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
--- a/xen/arch/x86/pv/dom0_build.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/pv/dom0_build.c
@@ -815,7 +815,6 @@ int __init dom0_construct_pv(struct doma
page_list_for_each ( page, &d->page_list )
{
mfn = mfn_x(page_to_mfn(page));
- BUG_ON(SHARED_M2P(get_gpfn_from_mfn(mfn)));
if ( get_gpfn_from_mfn(mfn) >= count )
{
BUG_ON(compat);
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Ping: [PATCH] x86: drop a bogus SHARED_M2P() check from Dom0 building code
2021-06-28 11:52 [PATCH] x86: drop a bogus SHARED_M2P() check from Dom0 building code Jan Beulich
@ 2021-07-06 7:37 ` Jan Beulich
2021-09-21 6:10 ` Ping²: " Jan Beulich
2021-09-21 7:54 ` Roger Pau Monné
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Jan Beulich @ 2021-07-06 7:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Cooper, Roger Pau Monné, Wei Liu; +Cc: xen-devel
On 28.06.2021 13:52, Jan Beulich wrote:
> If anything, a check covering a wider range of invalid M2P entries ought
> to be used (e.g. VALID_M2P()). But since everything is fully under Xen's
> control at this stage, simply remove the BUG_ON().
>
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
I didn't expect this to be controversial, so may I please ask for an ack
(or otherwise)?
Thanks, Jan
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/pv/dom0_build.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/pv/dom0_build.c
> @@ -815,7 +815,6 @@ int __init dom0_construct_pv(struct doma
> page_list_for_each ( page, &d->page_list )
> {
> mfn = mfn_x(page_to_mfn(page));
> - BUG_ON(SHARED_M2P(get_gpfn_from_mfn(mfn)));
> if ( get_gpfn_from_mfn(mfn) >= count )
> {
> BUG_ON(compat);
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Ping²: [PATCH] x86: drop a bogus SHARED_M2P() check from Dom0 building code
2021-07-06 7:37 ` Ping: " Jan Beulich
@ 2021-09-21 6:10 ` Jan Beulich
2021-09-21 7:55 ` Roger Pau Monné
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Jan Beulich @ 2021-09-21 6:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Cooper, Roger Pau Monné, Wei Liu; +Cc: xen-devel
On 06.07.2021 09:37, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 28.06.2021 13:52, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> If anything, a check covering a wider range of invalid M2P entries ought
>> to be used (e.g. VALID_M2P()). But since everything is fully under Xen's
>> control at this stage, simply remove the BUG_ON().
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
>
> I didn't expect this to be controversial, so may I please ask for an ack
> (or otherwise)?
To be quite honest, I find it very strange that even simple changes like
this one sit un-responded to for months. This isn't the only example ...
Thanks, Jan
>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/pv/dom0_build.c
>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/pv/dom0_build.c
>> @@ -815,7 +815,6 @@ int __init dom0_construct_pv(struct doma
>> page_list_for_each ( page, &d->page_list )
>> {
>> mfn = mfn_x(page_to_mfn(page));
>> - BUG_ON(SHARED_M2P(get_gpfn_from_mfn(mfn)));
>> if ( get_gpfn_from_mfn(mfn) >= count )
>> {
>> BUG_ON(compat);
>>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] x86: drop a bogus SHARED_M2P() check from Dom0 building code
2021-06-28 11:52 [PATCH] x86: drop a bogus SHARED_M2P() check from Dom0 building code Jan Beulich
2021-07-06 7:37 ` Ping: " Jan Beulich
@ 2021-09-21 7:54 ` Roger Pau Monné
1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Roger Pau Monné @ 2021-09-21 7:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan Beulich; +Cc: xen-devel, Andrew Cooper, Wei Liu
Could you explicitly mention PV somewhere in the subject?
On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 01:52:52PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> If anything, a check covering a wider range of invalid M2P entries ought
> to be used (e.g. VALID_M2P()). But since everything is fully under Xen's
> control at this stage, simply remove the BUG_ON().
AFAICT adding this BUG_ON was a wholesale change to protect against
shared frames, but I also cannot ssee an scenario where we can get
here with shared frames in the m2p.
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
Acked-by: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@citrix.com>
Thanks, Roger.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Ping²: [PATCH] x86: drop a bogus SHARED_M2P() check from Dom0 building code
2021-09-21 6:10 ` Ping²: " Jan Beulich
@ 2021-09-21 7:55 ` Roger Pau Monné
2021-09-21 7:58 ` Jan Beulich
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Roger Pau Monné @ 2021-09-21 7:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan Beulich; +Cc: Andrew Cooper, Wei Liu, xen-devel
On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 08:10:12AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 06.07.2021 09:37, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > On 28.06.2021 13:52, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> If anything, a check covering a wider range of invalid M2P entries ought
> >> to be used (e.g. VALID_M2P()). But since everything is fully under Xen's
> >> control at this stage, simply remove the BUG_ON().
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
> >
> > I didn't expect this to be controversial, so may I please ask for an ack
> > (or otherwise)?
>
> To be quite honest, I find it very strange that even simple changes like
> this one sit un-responded to for months. This isn't the only example ...
Sorry, I'm trying to catch up with reviews, but after being away so
long it's hard to figure out what's pending.
Regards, Roger.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Ping²: [PATCH] x86: drop a bogus SHARED_M2P() check from Dom0 building code
2021-09-21 7:55 ` Roger Pau Monné
@ 2021-09-21 7:58 ` Jan Beulich
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Jan Beulich @ 2021-09-21 7:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Roger Pau Monné; +Cc: Andrew Cooper, Wei Liu, xen-devel
On 21.09.2021 09:55, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 08:10:12AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 06.07.2021 09:37, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 28.06.2021 13:52, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> If anything, a check covering a wider range of invalid M2P entries ought
>>>> to be used (e.g. VALID_M2P()). But since everything is fully under Xen's
>>>> control at this stage, simply remove the BUG_ON().
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
>>>
>>> I didn't expect this to be controversial, so may I please ask for an ack
>>> (or otherwise)?
>>
>> To be quite honest, I find it very strange that even simple changes like
>> this one sit un-responded to for months. This isn't the only example ...
>
> Sorry, I'm trying to catch up with reviews, but after being away so
> long it's hard to figure out what's pending.
Thanks for the ack, and I know you're still catching up. This wasn't
primarily targeted at you (for this reason), but it also wouldn't have
felt right to not include you in the ping.
Jan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2021-09-21 7:58 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2021-06-28 11:52 [PATCH] x86: drop a bogus SHARED_M2P() check from Dom0 building code Jan Beulich
2021-07-06 7:37 ` Ping: " Jan Beulich
2021-09-21 6:10 ` Ping²: " Jan Beulich
2021-09-21 7:55 ` Roger Pau Monné
2021-09-21 7:58 ` Jan Beulich
2021-09-21 7:54 ` Roger Pau Monné
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.