Re: [Xen-devel] hypercall_xlat_continuation()

[Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 2009-05-28 at 23:01 -0400, Mukesh Rathor wrote:
> yeah, looks like privcmd_ioctl_32() only fixes the wrapper struct. The
> PFN array still is 32bit pfn's, and privcmd_ioctl() expects 64bits. So,
> in a dilemma now, not sure if I should fix it up in privcmd_ioctl_32()
> or change privcmd_ioctl() which will take some time to reverse engineer.
> Not sure how many things I'll discover, if it's too many, it may
> not be worth it in the end.

FWIW here are my very skanky patches from ages ago (patch names are the
originals if that gives a clue to my opinion of them even then ;-)).

I don't even recall if they worked properly (or at all), I think I
remember starting guests so long as they didn't use blktap (which has
issues with the user<->kernel ring protocol in this scenario).

There's an outside change there might be something in them which isn't
complete rubbish.

Ian.

Attachment: hypervisor-skankup32on64on64.patch
Description: Text Data

Attachment: kernel-skankup32on64on64.patch
Description: Text Data

Attachment: kernel-32on64on64-batch-privcmd-fixup.patch
Description: Text Data

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel