From: Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org>
To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
Cc: "George Dunlap" <George.Dunlap@eu.citrix.com>,
"xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org" <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>,
"Roger Pau Monné" <roger.pau@citrix.com>, "Wei Liu" <wl@xen.org>,
"Andrew Cooper" <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] x86/shadow: l3table[] and gl3e[] are HVM only
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 18:37:33 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200720173733.GA70485@deinos.phlegethon.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1baa0d50-86a4-b0ba-d43a-ad0c0446b54b@suse.com>
At 10:55 +0200 on 20 Jul (1595242521), Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 18.07.2020 20:20, Tim Deegan wrote:
> > At 12:00 +0200 on 15 Jul (1594814409), Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> ... by the very fact that they're 3-level specific, while PV always gets
> >> run in 4-level mode. This requires adding some seemingly redundant
> >> #ifdef-s - some of them will be possible to drop again once 2- and
> >> 3-level guest code doesn't get built anymore in !HVM configs, but I'm
> >> afraid there's still quite a bit of disentangling work to be done to
> >> make this possible.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
> >
> > Looks good. It seems like the new code for '3-level non-HVM' in
> > guest-walks ought to have some sort of assert-unreachable in them too
> > - or is there a reason to to?
>
> You mean this piece of code
>
> +#elif !defined(CONFIG_HVM)
> + (void)root_gfn;
> + memset(gw, 0, sizeof(*gw));
> + return false;
> +#else /* PAE */
>
> If so - sure, ASSERT_UNREACHABLE() could be added there. It simply
> didn't occur to me. I take it your ack for the entire series holds
> here with this addition.
Yes, it does. Thanks!
Tim.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-07-20 17:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-07-15 9:56 [PATCH 0/5] x86: mostly shadow related XSA-319 follow-up Jan Beulich
2020-07-15 9:58 ` [PATCH 1/5] x86/shadow: dirty VRAM tracking is needed for HVM only Jan Beulich
2020-07-15 9:58 ` [PATCH 2/5] x86/shadow: shadow_table[] needs only one entry for PV-only configs Jan Beulich
2020-07-15 9:59 ` [PATCH 3/5] x86/PV: drop a few misleading paging_mode_refcounts() checks Jan Beulich
2020-07-31 14:58 ` Ping: " Jan Beulich
2020-07-31 15:17 ` Andrew Cooper
2020-07-15 9:59 ` [PATCH 4/5] x86/shadow: have just a single instance of sh_set_toplevel_shadow() Jan Beulich
2020-07-15 10:00 ` [PATCH 5/5] x86/shadow: l3table[] and gl3e[] are HVM only Jan Beulich
2020-07-18 18:20 ` Tim Deegan
2020-07-20 8:55 ` Jan Beulich
2020-07-20 17:37 ` Tim Deegan [this message]
2020-07-18 18:21 ` [PATCH 0/5] x86: mostly shadow related XSA-319 follow-up Tim Deegan
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20200720173733.GA70485@deinos.phlegethon.org \
--to=tim@xen.org \
--cc=George.Dunlap@eu.citrix.com \
--cc=andrew.cooper3@citrix.com \
--cc=jbeulich@suse.com \
--cc=roger.pau@citrix.com \
--cc=wl@xen.org \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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.