On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 12:52:45PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> Using p2m_is_valid() isn't quite right here. It expanding to RAM+MMIO,
> the subsequent p2m_mmio_direct check effectively reduces its use to
> RAM+MMIO_DM. Yet MMIO_DM entries, which are never marked present in the
> page tables, won't
On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 04:16:36PM +0100, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 12:52:45PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > Using p2m_is_valid() isn't quite right here. It expanding to RAM+MMIO,
> > the subsequent p2m_mmio_direct check effectively reduces its use to
> > RAM+MMIO_DM. Yet MMI
Using p2m_is_valid() isn't quite right here. It expanding to RAM+MMIO,
the subsequent p2m_mmio_direct check effectively reduces its use to
RAM+MMIO_DM. Yet MMIO_DM entries, which are never marked present in the
page tables, won't pass the mfn_valid() check. It is, however, quite
plausible (and supp
