From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Steven Rostedt <srostedt@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH] Fix >4G i386 PAE grant table interface
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2006 09:25:38 -0500
Message-ID: <454CA2E2.6060606@redhat.com>
References: <C171F4CA.3D26%Keir.Fraser@cl.cam.ac.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com>
In-Reply-To: <C171F4CA.3D26%Keir.Fraser@cl.cam.ac.uk>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
To: Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@cl.cam.ac.uk>
Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@novell.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

Keir Fraser wrote:
> On 3/11/06 10:46 pm, "Steven Rostedt" <srostedt@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
>> It's much worst than that!
>>
>> Without this patch, my patch is still broken.  In the hypervisor this
>> flag is checked, and will go down the wrong path when it is missing:
> 
> The hypervisor remembers the flags for itself, so the kernel can only
> confuse itself. Still, it was a bug.
> 

Well the flag for the application map isn't the problem. But I do see 
missing the flag for contains pte is a problem.

> 

int create_grant_host_mapping(
     u64 addr, unsigned long frame, unsigned int flags)
{
     l1_pgentry_t pte = l1e_from_pfn(frame, GRANT_PTE_FLAGS);

     if ( (flags & GNTMAP_application_map) )
         l1e_add_flags(pte,_PAGE_USER);
     if ( !(flags & GNTMAP_readonly) )
         l1e_add_flags(pte,_PAGE_RW);

     if ( flags & GNTMAP_contains_pte )
         return create_grant_pte_mapping(addr, pte, current);
     return create_grant_va_mapping(addr, pte, current);
}

int destroy_grant_host_mapping(
     u64 addr, unsigned long frame, unsigned int flags)
{
     if ( flags & GNTMAP_contains_pte )
         return destroy_grant_pte_mapping(addr, frame, current->domain);
     return destroy_grant_va_mapping(addr, frame, current);
}

So is there a difference between create_grant_pte_mapping and 
create_grant_va_mapping. As well as destroy_grant_pte_mapping and 
destroy_grant_va_mapping. So calling pte create, and then va destroy on 
the same mapping is not a bug?

-- Steve