> -----Original Message----- > From: Jan Beulich [mailto:jbeul...@suse.com] > Sent: 04 December 2017 10:26 > To: xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org> > Cc: Paul Durrant <paul.durr...@citrix.com> > Subject: [PATCH] x86/HVM: tighten re-issue check in hvmemul_do_io() > > I'm not sure why we had left out the address check in case of indirect > accesses (where "data" holds a guest physical address).
No, I don't know why I overlooked that one. Reviewed-by: Paul Durrant <paul.durr...@citrix.com> > > Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> > > --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/emulate.c > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/emulate.c > @@ -163,7 +163,8 @@ static int hvmemul_do_io( > (p.count > *reps) || > (p.dir != dir) || > (p.df != df) || > - (p.data_is_ptr != data_is_addr) ) > + (p.data_is_ptr != data_is_addr) || > + (data_is_addr && (p.data != data)) ) > domain_crash(currd); > > if ( data_is_addr ) > > _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
