From: "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@novell.com>
To: "Jeremy Fitzhardinge" <jeremy@goop.org>
Cc: "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@elte.hu>,
"xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" <xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>,
"Chris Lalancette" <clalance@redhat.com>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH]: Fix Xen domU boot with batched mprotect
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 16:30:44 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <48F8CBC4.76E4.0078.0@novell.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <48F8ACF7.6050905@goop.org>
>>> Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org> 17.10.08 17:19 >>>
>Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org> 16.10.08 18:10 >>>
>>>>>
>>> The current x86-64 implementation is:
>>>
>>> bool __virt_addr_valid(unsigned long x)
>>> {
>>> if (x >= __START_KERNEL_map) {
>>> x -= __START_KERNEL_map;
>>> if (x >= KERNEL_IMAGE_SIZE)
>>> return false;
>>>
>>
>> This, imo, is still broken (i.e. the name of the function still isn't matched
>> by the implementation): KERNEL_IMAGE_SIZE is a constant and doesn't
>> account for the fact that only the real kernel image can be relied upon
>> to be mapped.
>>
>
>Perhaps, but I don't think it matters too much. Unless you have a tiny
>amount of physical memory, locations in the kernel mapping beyond the
>actual kernel will still resolve to proper locations in the linear map.
Is e.g. 256Mb tiny? KERNEL_IMAGE_SIZE these days is 512Mb... Indeed,
when it was 40Mb (up until a few releases ago), this indeed wouldn't
matter.
Jan
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@novell.com>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
"xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" <xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>,
Chris Lalancette <clalance@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH]: Fix Xen domU boot with batched mprotect
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 16:30:44 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <48F8CBC4.76E4.0078.0@novell.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <48F8ACF7.6050905@goop.org>
>>> Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org> 17.10.08 17:19 >>>
>Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org> 16.10.08 18:10 >>>
>>>>>
>>> The current x86-64 implementation is:
>>>
>>> bool __virt_addr_valid(unsigned long x)
>>> {
>>> if (x >= __START_KERNEL_map) {
>>> x -= __START_KERNEL_map;
>>> if (x >= KERNEL_IMAGE_SIZE)
>>> return false;
>>>
>>
>> This, imo, is still broken (i.e. the name of the function still isn't matched
>> by the implementation): KERNEL_IMAGE_SIZE is a constant and doesn't
>> account for the fact that only the real kernel image can be relied upon
>> to be mapped.
>>
>
>Perhaps, but I don't think it matters too much. Unless you have a tiny
>amount of physical memory, locations in the kernel mapping beyond the
>actual kernel will still resolve to proper locations in the linear map.
Is e.g. 256Mb tiny? KERNEL_IMAGE_SIZE these days is 512Mb... Indeed,
when it was 40Mb (up until a few releases ago), this indeed wouldn't
matter.
Jan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-10-17 15:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-10-15 11:03 [PATCH]: Fix Xen domU boot with batched mprotect Chris Lalancette
2008-10-15 11:03 ` Chris Lalancette
2008-10-15 15:24 ` [Xen-devel] " Jan Beulich
2008-10-15 15:24 ` Jan Beulich
2008-10-15 16:23 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-10-15 16:23 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-10-16 7:28 ` [Xen-devel] " Jan Beulich
2008-10-16 7:28 ` Jan Beulich
2008-10-16 9:58 ` [Xen-devel] " Jan Beulich
2008-10-16 9:58 ` Jan Beulich
2008-10-16 16:10 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-10-16 16:10 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-10-17 7:12 ` [Xen-devel] " Jan Beulich
2008-10-17 7:12 ` Jan Beulich
2008-10-17 15:19 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-10-17 15:19 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-10-17 15:30 ` Jan Beulich [this message]
2008-10-17 15:30 ` Jan Beulich
2008-10-17 15:36 ` [Xen-devel] " Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-10-17 15:36 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=48F8CBC4.76E4.0078.0@novell.com \
--to=jbeulich@novell.com \
--cc=clalance@redhat.com \
--cc=jeremy@goop.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xensource.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.