> -----Original Message----- > From: Jan Beulich [mailto:jbeul...@suse.com] > Sent: 10 August 2018 13:13 > To: Paul Durrant <paul.durr...@citrix.com> > Cc: xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org> > Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 0/2] MMIO emulation fixes > > >>> On 10.08.18 at 14:08, <paul.durr...@citrix.com> wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:jbeul...@suse.com] > >> Sent: 10 August 2018 13:02 > >> To: Paul Durrant <paul.durr...@citrix.com> > >> Cc: xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org> > >> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 0/2] MMIO emulation fixes > >> > >> >>> On 10.08.18 at 12:37, <paul.durr...@citrix.com> wrote: > >> > These are probably both candidates for back-port. > >> > > >> > Paul Durrant (2): > >> > x86/hvm/ioreq: MMIO range checking completely ignores direction flag > >> > x86/hvm/emulate: make sure rep I/O emulation does not cross GFN > >> > boundaries > >> > > >> > xen/arch/x86/hvm/emulate.c | 17 ++++++++++++++++- > >> > xen/arch/x86/hvm/ioreq.c | 15 ++++++++++----- > >> > 2 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > >> > >> I take it this isn't yet what we've talked about yesterday on irc? > >> > > > > This is the band-aid fix. I can now show correct handling of a rep mov > > walking off MMIO into RAM. > > But that's not the problem we're having. In our case the bad behavior > is with a single MOV. That's why I had assumed that your plan to fiddle > with null_handler would help in our case as well, while this series clearly > won't (afaict). >
Oh, I see. A single MOV spanning MMIO and RAM has undefined behaviour though as I understand it. Am I incorrect? Paul > Jan > _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
