Hi Julien,
On 07/06/2016 08:35 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
>
>
> On 06/07/16 17:35, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 10:29 AM, Julien Grall
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 06/07/16 17:05, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Julien Grall
wrote:
>
>
On 06/07/16 17:35, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 10:29 AM, Julien Grall wrote:
On 06/07/16 17:05, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Julien Grall wrote:
Taken aside the VMFUNC, it looks like insecure to expose a HVMOP to the
guest which could modify
On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 10:29 AM, Julien Grall wrote:
>
>
> On 06/07/16 17:05, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Julien Grall wrote:
>>>
>>> Taken aside the VMFUNC, it looks like insecure to expose a HVMOP to the
>>> guest which could modify the memaccess attribute of a
On 06/07/16 17:05, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Julien Grall wrote:
Taken aside the VMFUNC, it looks like insecure to expose a HVMOP to the
guest which could modify the memaccess attribute of a region.
I thought the whole purpose of VM introspection is to avoid trus
On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Julien Grall wrote:
> (Add x86 maintainers)
>
>
> On 06/07/16 16:23, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 7:43 AM, Julien Grall wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello Sergej,
>>>
>>>
>>> On 06/07/16 10:14, Sergej Proskurin wrote:
On 07/05/2016 12:19 PM,
(Add x86 maintainers)
On 06/07/16 16:23, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 7:43 AM, Julien Grall wrote:
Hello Sergej,
On 06/07/16 10:14, Sergej Proskurin wrote:
On 07/05/2016 12:19 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
Hello Sergej,
On 04/07/16 12:45, Sergej Proskurin wrote:
+static int
On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 7:43 AM, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hello Sergej,
>
>
> On 06/07/16 10:14, Sergej Proskurin wrote:
>>
>> On 07/05/2016 12:19 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello Sergej,
>>>
>>> On 04/07/16 12:45, Sergej Proskurin wrote:
+static int do_altp2m_op(XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(
Hello Sergej,
On 06/07/16 10:14, Sergej Proskurin wrote:
On 07/05/2016 12:19 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
Hello Sergej,
On 04/07/16 12:45, Sergej Proskurin wrote:
+static int do_altp2m_op(XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(void) arg)
+{
+struct xen_hvm_altp2m_op a;
+struct domain *d = NULL;
+int r
Hi Julien,
On 07/05/2016 12:19 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hello Sergej,
>
> On 04/07/16 12:45, Sergej Proskurin wrote:
>> +static int do_altp2m_op(XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(void) arg)
>> +{
>> +struct xen_hvm_altp2m_op a;
>> +struct domain *d = NULL;
>> +int rc = 0;
>> +
>> +if ( !hvm
Hello Sergej,
On 04/07/16 12:45, Sergej Proskurin wrote:
+static int do_altp2m_op(XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(void) arg)
+{
+struct xen_hvm_altp2m_op a;
+struct domain *d = NULL;
+int rc = 0;
+
+if ( !hvm_altp2m_supported() )
+return -EOPNOTSUPP;
+
+if ( copy_from_guest(&a
Hello Julien,
On 07/04/2016 03:36 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hello Sergej,
>
> On 04/07/16 12:45, Sergej Proskurin wrote:
>> This commit moves the altp2m-related code from x86 to ARM.
>
> Looking at the code in the follow-up patches, I have the impression that
> the code is very similar (if not e
Hello Sergej,
On 04/07/16 12:45, Sergej Proskurin wrote:
This commit moves the altp2m-related code from x86 to ARM.
Looking at the code in the follow-up patches, I have the impression that
the code is very similar (if not exactly) to the x86 code. If so, we
should move the HVMOP for altp2m i
This commit moves the altp2m-related code from x86 to ARM. Functions
that are no yet supported notify the caller or print a BUG message
stating their absence.
Also, the struct arch_domain is extended with the altp2m_active
attribute, represeting the current altp2m activity configuration of the
dom
This commit moves the altp2m-related code from x86 to ARM. Functions
that are no yet supported notify the caller or print a BUG message
stating their absence.
Also, the struct arch_domain is extended with the altp2m_active
attribute, represeting the current altp2m activity configuration of the
dom
14 matches
Mail list logo
