[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v6 7/9] xen/mem_access: Use __get_gfn_type_access in set_mem_access
On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 6:10 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 27.01.2020 19:06, Tamas K Lengyel wrote: > > Use __get_gfn_type_access instead of p2m->get_entry to trigger page-forking > > when the mem_access permission is being set on a page that has not yet been > > copied over from the parent. > > You talking of page-forking here, don't you mean ... > > > --- a/xen/arch/x86/mm/mem_access.c > > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm/mem_access.c > > @@ -303,11 +303,10 @@ static int set_mem_access(struct domain *d, struct > > p2m_domain *p2m, > > ASSERT(!ap2m); > > #endif > > { > > - mfn_t mfn; > > p2m_access_t _a; > > p2m_type_t t; > > - > > - mfn = p2m->get_entry(p2m, gfn, &t, &_a, 0, NULL, NULL); > > + mfn_t mfn = __get_gfn_type_access(p2m, gfn_x(gfn), &t, &_a, > > + P2M_ALLOC, NULL, false); > > ... P2M_UNSHARE here? No, P2M_UNSHARE is only required if you are doing a memory write. Setting memory access permissions is not a memory write, so it's sufficient to just allocate the p2m entry. P2M_ALLOCATE also encompasses forking the entry if there is a parent VM. > > Also shouldn't you have Cc-ed Petre and Alexandru on this patch > (for their R: entries) and at least George (perhaps also Andrew > and me) to get an ack, seeing that you're the only maintainer > of the file? I've ran ./add_maintainers.pl on the patches, not sure why noone else got CC-d. Tamas _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |