From: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>,
xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>
Cc: Paul Durrant <paul.durrant@citrix.com>
Subject: [PATCH v2] x86/HVM: correct hvmemul_map_linear_addr() for multi-page case
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2018 13:41:26 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <adf1e4f7-9845-d09c-026d-54cd7a7050cd@citrix.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5B9A381302000078001E81DC@prv1-mh.provo.novell.com>
On 13/09/18 11:12, Jan Beulich wrote:
> The function does two translations in one go for a single guest access.
> Any failure of the first translation step (guest linear -> guest
> physical), resulting in #PF, ought to take precedence over any failure
> of the second step (guest physical -> host physical).
Why? What is the basis of this presumption?
As far as what real hardware does...
This test sets up a ballooned page and a read-only page. I.e. a second
stage fault on the first part of a misaligned access, and a first stage
fault on the second part of the access.
(d1) --- Xen Test Framework ---
(d1) Environment: HVM 64bit (Long mode 4 levels)
(d1) Test splitfault
(d1) About to read
(XEN) *** EPT qual 0000000000000181, gpa 000000000011cffc
(d1) Reading PTR: got 00000000ffffffff
(d1) About to write
(XEN) *** EPT qual 0000000000000182, gpa 000000000011cffc
(d1) ******************************
(d1) PANIC: Unhandled exception at 0008:00000000001047e0
(d1) Vec 14 #PF[-d-sWP] %cr2 000000000011d000
(d1) ******************************
The second stage fault is recognised first, which is contrary to your
presumption, i.e. the code in its current form appears to be correct.
~Andrew
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-09-20 12:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-09-12 9:09 [PATCH] x86/HVM: correct hvmemul_map_linear_addr() for multi-page case Jan Beulich
2018-09-12 11:51 ` Paul Durrant
2018-09-12 12:13 ` Jan Beulich
2018-09-13 10:12 ` [PATCH v2] " Jan Beulich
2018-09-13 11:06 ` Paul Durrant
2018-09-13 11:39 ` Jan Beulich
2018-09-13 11:41 ` Paul Durrant
2018-09-20 12:41 ` Andrew Cooper [this message]
2018-09-20 13:39 ` Jan Beulich
2018-09-20 14:13 ` Andrew Cooper
2018-09-20 14:51 ` Jan Beulich
2018-09-25 12:41 ` Jan Beulich
2018-09-25 15:30 ` Andrew Cooper
2018-09-26 9:27 ` Jan Beulich
2018-10-08 11:53 ` Jan Beulich
2019-07-31 11:26 ` [Xen-devel] " Alexandru Stefan ISAILA
2023-08-30 14:30 ` [Xen-devel] [PATCH] " Roger Pau Monné
2023-08-30 18:09 ` Andrew Cooper
2023-08-31 7:03 ` Jan Beulich
2023-08-31 8:59 ` Roger Pau Monné
2023-08-31 7:14 ` [Xen-devel] " Jan Beulich
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=adf1e4f7-9845-d09c-026d-54cd7a7050cd@citrix.com \
--to=andrew.cooper3@citrix.com \
--cc=JBeulich@suse.com \
--cc=paul.durrant@citrix.com \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org \
/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.