Re: [Xen-devel] 4.2 TODO update

[Tim Deegan <tim@xxxxxxx>]

At 08:22 -0800 on 15 Feb (1329294161), Andres Lagar-Cavilla wrote:
> > Maybe we can arrange that instead of bugging out if the cpu is
> > in_atomic() it gdprintk()s a big ol' warning and crashes the guest?  It
> > seems no worse than the current failure modes.
> 
> How about judiciously adding the following
> 
> get_gfn_sleep(d, gfn, type)
> {
>   if (d == current_domain && !in_atomic())
>   {
>     printk("Naughty");
>     crash_domain(d);
>     return INVALID_MFN;
>   }

Yes, that's the sort of thing I had in mind (though the in_atomic() test
shouldn't be inverted).

I'll dig out Olaf's most recent patch tomorrow and see how that would
work; I'm travelling so my access to test hardware is a bit limited but
I'll try to at least make a draft patch.

Tim.


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