On 01/02/2020 00:33, David Woodhouse wrote:
if ( xen_cpuidle )
xen_processor_pmbits |= XEN_PROCESSOR_PM_CX;
+ printk("%sNX (Execute Disable) protection %sactive\n",
+ cpu_has_nx ? XENLOG_INFO : XENLOG_WARNING "Warning: ",
+ cpu_has_nx ? "" : "not ");
+
The placement of printk shouldn't matter but the change feels a bit
out-of-context. Would you mind to explain it in the commit message?
initrdidx = find_first_bit(module_map, mbi->mods_count);
if ( initrdidx < mbi->mods_count )
initrd = mod + initrdidx;
@@ -1801,34 +1836,14 @@ void __init noreturn __start_xen(unsigned long mbi_p)
"Multiple initrd candidates, picking module #%u\n",
initrdidx);
- /*
- * Temporarily clear SMAP in CR4 to allow user-accesses in
construct_dom0().
- * This saves a large number of corner cases interactions with
- * copy_from_user().
- */
- if ( cpu_has_smap )
- {
- cr4_pv32_mask &= ~X86_CR4_SMAP;
- write_cr4(read_cr4() & ~X86_CR4_SMAP);
- }
-
- printk("%sNX (Execute Disable) protection %sactive\n",
- cpu_has_nx ? XENLOG_INFO : XENLOG_WARNING "Warning: ",
- cpu_has_nx ? "" : "not ");
-
[...]
Cheers,
--
Julien Grall
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
