From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Scott Parish" Subject: Re: [patch] (resend) mask out nx bits when calculatingpfn/mfn Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 16:23:10 +0000 Message-ID: <20050607162310.GD3182@us.ibm.com> References: <7F740D512C7C1046AB53446D37200173042FE7E4@scsmsx402.amr.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7F740D512C7C1046AB53446D37200173042FE7E4@scsmsx402.amr.corp.intel.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: "Nakajima, Jun" Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, Scott Parish List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 09:58:20AM -0700, Nakajima, Jun wrote: > But did you really see the NX bit? I think that (NX bit) would be a good > catch and it explains several failures of device drivers. We should fix > the creator of the pte (by __supported_pte_mask), not the consumer of > it. I was seeing it in xen_contig_memory(), which was getting called by e100_alloc_cbs(). The crash was happening when i would run "xend start" By "fix the creator", your suggesting that there shouldn't be an NX bit set? Why? > We also need to fix Xen because Xen should not reject the request just > because it has the NX bit on. An NX bit is now an official part of a page frame number??? i'm confused sRp -- Scott Parish Signed-off-by: srparish@us.ibm.com