From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] [GSOC14] refactored mempaging code
 from xenpaging to libxc.
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 11:41:27 +0100
Message-ID: <53AD4A57.8030108@citrix.com>
References: <1402942851-12538-1-git-send-email-myselfdushyantbehl@gmail.com>	
	<1402942851-12538-2-git-send-email-myselfdushyantbehl@gmail.com>	
	<1403864836.25894.8.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com>
	<1403865457.25894.16.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <1403865457.25894.16.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>, Dushyant Behl <myselfdushyantbehl@gmail.com>
Cc: xen-devel@lists.xen.org, Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>, David Scott <dave.scott@eu.citrix.com>, Andres Lagar Cavilla <andres@lagarcavilla.org>, Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 27/06/14 11:37, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-06-27 at 11:27 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
>> On Mon, 2014-06-16 at 23:50 +0530, Dushyant Behl wrote:
>>
>>> +    /* Now that the ring is set, remove it from the guest's physmap */
>>> +    if ( xc_domain_decrease_reservation_exact(xch, domain_id, 1, 0, &ring_pfn) )
>> ... the lack of a domain pause and/or clearing the ring content in this
>> function does not represent an issue similar to
>> http://xenbits.xen.org/xsa/advisory-99.html.
> I found the answer to this in patch #3, but I had questions on that so I
> haven't applied yet.

Doesn't c/s 6ae2df93c277, the fix for XSA-99 do change all of this anyway?

Patch #2 still looks valid, albeit against xc_mem_event.c, but #1 and #3
appear to have already been done differently.

~Andrew