On 10/05/17 11:51, George Dunlap wrote: > On 10/05/17 11:26, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 10.05.17 at 11:43, <igor.druzhi...@citrix.com> wrote: >>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m-ept.c >>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m-ept.c >>> @@ -681,6 +681,7 @@ ept_set_entry(struct p2m_domain *p2m, unsigned long >>> gfn, mfn_t mfn, >>> ept_entry_t *table, *ept_entry = NULL; >>> unsigned long gfn_remainder = gfn; >>> unsigned int i, target = order / EPT_TABLE_ORDER; >>> + unsigned long mfn_mask = mfn_valid(mfn) ? mfn_x(mfn) : 0; >> >> Aiui MMIO pages will come here too, so an mfn_valid() check here >> (and below) is too lax. > > The resulting order will never be higher than the order passed in by the > caller. Assuming that the caller is setting an entire 2MiB (or 1GiB) > region as MMIO, is it not valid to set a 2MiB or 1GiB entry as such? > The code seems to be written in such a way that such entries are expected. > > -George >
Using mfn_valid() is my mistake here. I initially used mfn_eq(mfn, INVALID_MFN) but then mixed them up eventually. Igor _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
