Re: [RFC][PATCH 4/5] tools:firmware:hvmloader: reserve RMRR mappings in e820

["Chen, Tiejun" <tiejun.chen@intel.com>]

On 2014/8/8 23:53, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 07.08.14 at 13:02, <tiejun.chen@intel.com> wrote:
>> We need to reserve all RMRR mappings in e820 to avoid any
>> potential guest memory conflict.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Tiejun Chen <tiejun.chen@intel.com>
>> ---
>>   tools/firmware/hvmloader/e820.c | 14 ++++++++++++++
>>   tools/firmware/hvmloader/e820.h |  6 ++++++
>>   tools/firmware/hvmloader/util.c | 13 +++++++++++++
>>   tools/firmware/hvmloader/util.h |  1 +
>>   4 files changed, 34 insertions(+)
>
>> @@ -124,6 +126,18 @@ int build_e820_table(struct e820entry *e820,
>>       e820[nr].type = E820_RAM;
>>       nr++;
>>
>> +    /* We'd better reserve RMRR mapping for each VM to avoid potential
>> +     * memory conflict.
>> +     */
>> +    e820_rmrr_map = get_rmrr_map_info();
>> +    for ( i = 0; i <= e820_rmrr_map->nr_map; i++ )
>> +    {
>> +        e820[nr].addr = e820_rmrr_map->map[i].addr;
>> +        e820[nr].size = e820_rmrr_map->map[i].size + 1;
>> +        e820[nr].type = E820_RESERVED;
>> +        nr++;
>> +    }
>
> You can't just put this in an arbitrary place, without caring for overlaps
> (and ordering perhaps - I don't recall offhand whether E820 is
> required to be sorted, or whether that's just common practice). In fact
> I'm not certain the code block following your insertion (interestingly
> another Intel special) doesn't violate this too.

I will add some codes to sort nice in next revision.

Thanks
Tiejun

>
> Jan
>
>