[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH][4.17?] x86: also zap secondary time area handles during soft reset
- To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
- From: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2022 18:04:29 +0200
- Arc-authentication-results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=citrix.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=citrix.com; dkim=pass header.d=citrix.com; arc=none
- Arc-message-signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-1; bh=96jn79eJjGReWi027q+gD707LOnjTQWRbOoc55ad6ws=; b=KkY6tYqkf0MOFRpk8ZGqH71V4YMdkufXXUJMftoFoh8rZIN8FYrsRrem56XjMMQ/wVZF6It1jFgRrk51nu+G/LGMkOrEuwj/0T6mHtbzYrKQ24QRjo+F5BAEToTYWyOfHQyhzj8N7fBhntHcDC/uJvEHiIbrDiGUfFN+neZd32Wkw0vqGH7VHdaNslBJJEC5+PT5X1CTEeUAlX6xCoiNOU8HijGGqy2B8Mub7bxQZ0HZdXieEXL50CBxssMV5zWlRqwgsX84L8UReEdFaqhLb2C+oRP81HIZUlGZOWpgaW7nKw3X0PvSEzQdhNd4Cv92UoLWbzI0JYJ+hJTYUfP4yg==
- Arc-seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=DYpQFUDMChOdPoRz6td+w6jWUyISxzb3FZQtP6VT4CUspy06gmlCnYID3zwltsdZWcD4+FxQIjw8MuqKIbUz/lAHCfXuLD5cJkw3H66dfpZE3jssgBwNnKGhj1g1dsGKoz2rYQgd+Dri0uZSm0TYiokabD1ST+0tLO4WE3a1vxli5+mrTvixASyPQ4HmzIRX2ovmDzVk74sHmp1Tw5gAvzWY3hexDrkwtSL1LecpsYcP3S+rcJOtWWPNQhHaxEAaDRpHrORzULTtEm95D9Q5F7d1aDAbviIipfwoDOPfOhXqQj2mDDm1a2MsO/PXcAZZltZBuPfFRcsOn6E3EqM5lw==
- Authentication-results: dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;dmarc=none action=none header.from=citrix.com;
- Cc: "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, Wei Liu <wl@xxxxxxx>, Henry Wang <Henry.Wang@xxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Tue, 25 Oct 2022 16:04:45 +0000
- Ironport-data: A9a23:48MiQqmKnoFweVWwCtE7PWno5gy2J0RdPkR7XQ2eYbSJt1+Wr1Gzt xJNCmCEaffcZWD3ftsiYI618k1Vv5GDmoQ2HFRurSs1HyMWpZLJC+rCIxarNUt+DCFhoGFPt JxCN4aafKjYaleG+39B55C49SEUOZmgH+a6UqicUsxIbVcMYD87jh5+kPIOjIdtgNyoayuAo tq3qMDEULOf82cc3lk8tuTS9XuDgNyo4GlC5wRkOKgR1LPjvyJ94Kw3dPnZw0TQGuG4LsbiL 87fwbew+H/u/htFIrtJRZ6iLyXm6paLVeS/oiI+t5qK23CulQRrukoPD9IOaF8/ttm8t4sZJ OOhF3CHYVxB0qXkwIzxWvTDes10FfUuFLTveRBTvSEPpqFvnrSFL/hGVSkL0YMkFulfHmdx9 eBEEmE0NlObo/CUg4KjT8pNr5F2RCXrFNt3VnBI6xj8VKxja7aTBqLA6JlfwSs6gd1IEbDGf c0FZDFzbRPGJRpSJlMQD5F4l+Ct7pX9W2QA9BTJ+uxqvi6Kk1IZPLvFabI5fvSQQspYhACAr 3/u9GXlGBAKcteYzFJp91r83LKQwHqjA+r+EpWl1acz3WaewFcOUiw2S3qkg8Whp2ShDoc3x 0s8v3BGQbIJ3E6hQ8T5Xha4iGWZpRNaUN1Ve8Uq5QfIxqfK7gKxAmkfUiUHeNEgrNUxRzEhy hmOhdyBLSNrmK2YTzSa7Lj8hRO/PzIEa1ALYyAsRBEApdLkpekOYgnnS99iFOu/iI3zEDSpm TSS9nFh2fMUkNIB0Li98RbfmTWwq5PVTwkzoALKQmai6QA/b4mgD2C11WXmAT97BN7xZjG8U LIswKByMMhm4UmxqRGw
- Ironport-hdrordr: A9a23:Cv/QKangO9K3thFdg2ooPj3JaBbpDfO3imdD5ihNYBxZY6Wkfp +V8cjzhCWftN9OYhodcLC7V5Voj0mskKKdxbNhRYtKOzOWw1dATbsSlLcKpgeNJ8SQzI5gPM tbAstD4ZjLfCJHZKXBkXaF+rQbsb66GcmT7I+xrkuFDzsaDZ2Ihz0JdjpzeXcGIDWua6BJdq Z1saF81kedkDksH7KGL0hAe9KGi8zAlZrgbxJDLxk76DOWhTftzLLhCRCX0joXTjsKmN4ZgC D4uj28wp/mn+Cwyxfa2WOWx5NKmOH5wt8GIMCXkMAaJhjllw7tToV8XL+puiwzvYiUmR8Xue iJhy1lE9V46nvXcG3wiRzx2zP42DJr0HPmwU/wuwqXneXJABYBT+ZRj4NQdRXUr2A6ustn7a 5N12WF87JKEBLphk3GlpT1fiAvsnDxjWspkOYVgXAae5AZcqVtoYsW+14QOIscHRj99JssHI BVfYzhDc5tAB2nhk3izyhSKITGZAVyIv7GeDlJhiWt6UkYoJgjpHFoh/D2nR87heAAotd/lq b5259T5cFzp/8tHNxA7dg6MLqK40z2MGbx2TGpUCPaPZBCHU7xgLjKx5hwzN2WWfUzvegPcd L6IRhliVI=
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 05:58:10PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 25.10.2022 17:23, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 08:48:21AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> I wasn't sure about moving arch_domain_soft_reset() as a whole, but
> yes, if that wouldn't cause other interaction issues this might be
> an option.
>
> > In any case it's unlikely for a domain that was attempting a soft
> > reset to survive the hypervisor rejecting the operation, so it doesn't
> > matter much whether the domain is crashed by Xen or left as-is I would
> > think.
>
> I'm sorry, I don't think I understand what you're saying here. For
> PV I'd very much expect the guest to survive; it may of course then
> be crashed or destroyed by a further tool stack operation.
I was expecting a domain that goes to the length of preparing for a
soft reset operation to either perform such soft reset, or die as a
result (and perform a non-soft reset), as recovering into the previous
state won't be feasible. But maybe I'm wrong.
Thanks, Roger.
|
