On Thu, 30 May 2013 16:22:32 +0200 Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de> wrote:
> Am 30.05.2013 16:14, schrieb Luiz Capitulino: > > On Thu, 30 May 2013 16:10:28 +0200 > > Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de> wrote: > > > >> Am 30.05.2013 15:16, schrieb Luiz Capitulino: > >>> On Thu, 30 May 2013 15:16:18 +0200 > >>> Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On 05/30/13 14:59, Luiz Capitulino wrote: > >>>>> On Tue, 28 May 2013 14:19:22 -0400 > >>>>> Luiz Capitulino <lcapitul...@redhat.com> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> The code used to walk IA-32e page-tables, and possibly PAE page-tables, > >>>>>> uses the bit mask ~0xfff to get the next PML4E/PDPTE/PDE/PTE address. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> However, as we use a uint64_t to store the resulting address, that mask > >>>>>> gets expanded to 0xfffffffffffff000 which not only ends up selecting > >>>>>> reserved bits but also selects the XD bit (execute-disable) which > >>>>>> happens to be enabled by Windows 8, causing qemu_get_ram_ptr() to > >>>>>> abort. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> This commit fixes that problem by replacing ~0xfff by a correct mask > >>>>>> that only selects the address bit range (ie. bits 51:12). > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Luiz Capitulino <lcapitul...@redhat.com> > >>>>> > >>>>> Ping? Wen? > >>>>> > >>>>> Would be nice get a Reviewed-by before merging... > >>>> > >>>> I didn't miss your submission and did find it OK, I just felt unsure > >>>> about stating so, because "simple" patches like this are prime territory > >>>> to burn someone's R-b's worth (ie. to expose a reviewer's lack of > >>>> information / experience). But hey, what can I lose? The patch does look > >>>> good to me, so > >>> > >>> Thank you Laszlo! It's also new territory for me, that's why I'm asking > >>> for reviews (otherwise I'd just sneak it in some pull request :-) > >> > >> Luiz, you aware aware that I have another fix by Nuohan queued that > >> seemed orthogonal? > > > > Yes, they should be orthogonal. > > > >> If someone reviews my refactoring series (which > >> resent that patch) I would like to send out a PULL for that rather soon, > >> since it blocks further CPU work. I would then include your fix as well > >> to avoid merge conflicts. > > > > Thanks, although I was going to include it in my tomorrow's QMP pull > > request. Will this disturb your work? > > I hope not - could you then please pick up Nuohan's bugfix as well? Sure. > Still I'd be interested in your review - and I have one more patch to > add that I created offline yesterday wrt first paging-enabled CPU. You can CC me.