Re: [PATCH] x86/shadow: replace p2m_is_valid() uses

2025-03-13 Thread Jan Beulich
On 12.03.2025 13:30, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > On Wed, Mar 12, 2025 at 12:30:40PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: >> The justification for dropping p2m_mmio_dm from p2m_is_valid() was wrong >> for two of the shadow mode uses. >> >> In _sh_propagate() we want to create special L1 entries for p2m_mmio_dm >>

Re: [PATCH] x86/shadow: replace p2m_is_valid() uses

2025-03-13 Thread Roger Pau Monné
On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 07:55:42AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 12.03.2025 13:30, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 12, 2025 at 12:30:40PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: > >> The justification for dropping p2m_mmio_dm from p2m_is_valid() was wrong > >> for two of the shadow mode uses. > >> > >> I

Re: [PATCH] x86/shadow: replace p2m_is_valid() uses

2025-03-12 Thread Luca Fancellu
Hi Jan, > On 12 Mar 2025, at 11:30, Jan Beulich wrote: > > The justification for dropping p2m_mmio_dm from p2m_is_valid() was wrong > for two of the shadow mode uses. > > In _sh_propagate() we want to create special L1 entries for p2m_mmio_dm > pages. Hence we need to make sure we don't bail ea

Re: [PATCH] x86/shadow: replace p2m_is_valid() uses

2025-03-12 Thread Roger Pau Monné
On Wed, Mar 12, 2025 at 12:30:40PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: > The justification for dropping p2m_mmio_dm from p2m_is_valid() was wrong > for two of the shadow mode uses. > > In _sh_propagate() we want to create special L1 entries for p2m_mmio_dm > pages. Hence we need to make sure we don't bail e