From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86: don't allow Dom0 access to the MSI
 address range
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 10:48:00 -0400
Message-ID: <20130821144800.GA13701@phenom.dumpdata.com>
References: <5214784202000078000ED378@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
	<52147C2A02000078000ED38B@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
	<20130821142931.GG2593@phenom.dumpdata.com>
	<5214EE5902000078000ED5AA@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
Received: from mail6.bemta5.messagelabs.com ([195.245.231.135])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>) id 1VC9hg-0006hj-TU
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 14:48:09 +0000
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5214EE5902000078000ED5AA@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>, Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>, xiantao.zhang@intel.com
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 03:44:09PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 21.08.13 at 16:29, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 07:36:58AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> In particular, MMIO assignments should not be done using this area.
> > 
> > And just to make sure there are no regressions - have you tested
> > this with an upstream dom0 kernel to make sure it does not blow things up?
> 
> No, I didn't. I'm only testing with our own kernels. But I can't see
> how this could cause any regression - Dom0 is not supposed to
> map that page (from CPU perspective it's the LAPIC) one, and if
> it ever assigned the range as MMIO to a device, things would have
> blown up.

I see. What an odd name for an LAPIC region - MMIO.
> 
> > Or at least if it does blow up - are there any WARN or BUG to help
> > in coming up with a patch?
> 
> The E820 machine memory map that Dom0 gets to see would
> have that range marked as reserved (or unusable), and the
> MMIO rangeset printed in 'q' debug key output would also show
> the page as not accessible.

Thank you.
> 
> Jan
>