* bogus check in get_page_from_l1e()?
@ 2011-03-08 11:07 Jan Beulich
2011-03-08 15:19 ` Keir Fraser
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Jan Beulich @ 2011-03-08 11:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Keir Fraser; +Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
Keir,
in the I/O page code path, we have
if ( !iomem_access_permitted(pg_owner, mfn, mfn) )
{
if ( mfn != (PADDR_MASK >> PAGE_SHIFT) ) /* INVALID_MFN? */
MEM_LOG("Non-privileged (%u) attempt to map I/O space %08lx",
pg_owner->domain_id, mfn);
return 0;
}
What is the reason to suppress the warning for the one specific
(PADDR_MASK >> PAGE_SHIFT) MFN value, i.e. where could this
validly come from and hence warrant not to issue the warning?
Also, the message seems to be having the potential of being
misleading (these days at least, but perhaps it always was), as
it clearly is possible for Dom0 to also be denied a mapping here
(and hence the "Non-privileged" can be wrong).
Bottom line question: Should we issue the warning unconditionally,
just stating the domain ID?
Thanks, Jan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: bogus check in get_page_from_l1e()?
2011-03-08 11:07 bogus check in get_page_from_l1e()? Jan Beulich
@ 2011-03-08 15:19 ` Keir Fraser
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Keir Fraser @ 2011-03-08 15:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan Beulich; +Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
On 08/03/2011 11:07, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@novell.com> wrote:
> Keir,
>
> in the I/O page code path, we have
>
> if ( !iomem_access_permitted(pg_owner, mfn, mfn) )
> {
> if ( mfn != (PADDR_MASK >> PAGE_SHIFT) ) /* INVALID_MFN? */
> MEM_LOG("Non-privileged (%u) attempt to map I/O space %08lx",
> pg_owner->domain_id, mfn);
> return 0;
> }
>
> What is the reason to suppress the warning for the one specific
> (PADDR_MASK >> PAGE_SHIFT) MFN value, i.e. where could this
> validly come from and hence warrant not to issue the warning?
>
> Also, the message seems to be having the potential of being
> misleading (these days at least, but perhaps it always was), as
> it clearly is possible for Dom0 to also be denied a mapping here
> (and hence the "Non-privileged" can be wrong).
>
> Bottom line question: Should we issue the warning unconditionally,
> just stating the domain ID?
Long time a go, but ISTR that some PV guests (e.g., some versions of our
Linux patches) would attempt to map things during boot that they may not
have access to, and this would manifest as failed attempt to map
INVALID_MFN. Since it's not a genuine real I/O address that is failing to be
mapped, it also seems not so useful to log it.
That said, I'd be open to removing the check if it turns out that these days
failed mappings of INVALID_MFN never 'legitimately' happen. I'm skeptical of
that though.
-- Keir
> Thanks, Jan
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2011-03-08 15:19 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2011-03-08 11:07 bogus check in get_page_from_l1e()? Jan Beulich
2011-03-08 15:19 ` Keir Fraser
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).