BTW, did this solve the driver problem on your machine? Jun --- Intel Open Source Technology Center -----Original Message----- From: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com [mailto:xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com] On Behalf Of Nakajima, Jun Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2005 1:46 PM To: Scott Parish Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] [patch] predicate NX flag Scott Parish wrote:> the NX flag should only be set when its use is enabled. > > sRpRather than changing __PAGE_KERNEL, I think we should change set_p?d (? = g, u, m, e) like #define set_pmd(pmdptr, pmdval) xen_l2_entry_update(pmdptr, (pmdval)& __supported_pte_mask) Jun --- Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Scott Parish
2005-Jun-08 18:06 UTC
[Xen-devel] [patch] nx bit shouldn''t get set when disabled
How does the attached patch look? sRp -- Scott Parish Signed-off-by: srparish@us.ibm.com _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Scott Parish
2005-Jun-08 19:47 UTC
Re: [Xen-devel] [patch] nx bit shouldn''t get set when disabled
On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 08:56:32PM +0100, Keir Fraser wrote:> Why does x86_64 get pte_mfn, but not pae i386? I think pci-dma.c > should probably be shared between i386 and x86/64.Last time i checked, the linux side of i386 pae wasn''t merged into bk, so i have nothing to test such a patch against. I''ll plan on getting a pae setup going again and sending a patch to gerd.> Why the extra mask ops with __supported_pte_mask? Native x86/64 builds > obviously don''t need them...Definitions such as __PAGE_KERNEL set NX, but as Jun pointed out, those should only be set when NX mode is enabled. sRp -- Scott Parish Signed-off-by: srparish@us.ibm.com _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Keir Fraser
2005-Jun-08 19:56 UTC
Re: [Xen-devel] [patch] nx bit shouldn''t get set when disabled
On 8 Jun 2005, at 19:06, Scott Parish wrote:> How does the attached patch look? > > sRpWhy does x86_64 get pte_mfn, but not pae i386? I think pci-dma.c should probably be shared between i386 and x86/64. Why the extra mask ops with __supported_pte_mask? Native x86/64 builds obviously don''t need them... -- Keir _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Keir Fraser
2005-Jun-08 21:23 UTC
Re: [Xen-devel] [patch] nx bit shouldn''t get set when disabled
On 8 Jun 2005, at 20:47, Scott Parish wrote:>> Why does x86_64 get pte_mfn, but not pae i386? I think pci-dma.c >> should probably be shared between i386 and x86/64. > > Last time i checked, the linux side of i386 pae wasn''t merged into bk, > so i have nothing to test such a patch against. I''ll plan on getting a > pae setup going again and sending a patch to gerd.The functions that are changed aren''t pae-specific, and they are already in the xen/i386 tree. They can be patched in anticipation of pae, even though they can only be properly tested non-pae for the time being. I''m not inclined to take patches for xen/x86_64/pci-dma.c anyway: I think we can patch the xen/i386 one and share it with xen/x86_64. Otherwise we''re going to get unnecessary divergence between what really ought to be two identical files. (I already did this for arch/xen/i386/kernel/time.c, for example.)>> Why the extra mask ops with __supported_pte_mask? Native x86/64 builds >> obviously don''t need them... > > Definitions such as __PAGE_KERNEL set NX, but as Jun pointed out, those > should only be set when NX mode is enabled.So the extra masking isn''t required? -- Keir _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Scott Parish
2005-Jun-08 22:39 UTC
Re: [Xen-devel] [patch] nx bit shouldn''t get set when disabled
Sorry, i''ll be more careful in the future. sRp On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 10:31:36PM +0100, Keir Fraser wrote:> > You sent this only to me (not Jun or the list). :-) > > On 8 Jun 2005, at 21:47, Scott Parish wrote: > > >On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 10:23:47PM +0100, Keir Fraser wrote: > > > >>I''m not inclined to take patches for xen/x86_64/pci-dma.c > >>anyway: I think we can patch the xen/i386 one and share it with > >>xen/x86_64. > > > >I''ll start looking into this. > > > >>So the extra masking isn''t required? > > > >Not for any reason i know of. Jun? > > > >sRp > > > >-- > >Scott Parish > >Signed-off-by: srparish@us.ibm.com > >-- Scott Parish Signed-off-by: srparish@us.ibm.com _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Scott Parish
2005-Jun-09 12:59 UTC
Re: [Xen-devel] [patch] nx bit shouldn''t get set when disabled
On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 10:23:47PM +0100, Keir Fraser wrote:> I''m not inclined to take patches for xen/x86_64/pci-dma.c anyway: I > think we can patch the xen/i386 one and share it with xen/x86_64. > Otherwise we''re going to get unnecessary divergence between what > really ought to be two identical files. (I already did this for > arch/xen/i386/kernel/time.c, for example.)The attached patch unifies pci-dma.c and adds the pte_mfn() macro. The one thing that might need an explanation, there''s 4 lines of changes (walking the page table) that add parentheses. The x86_64 compiler doesn''t seem to like doing unparenthesized math for function arguments. Boot tested dom0 on x86_64 and x86_32 (non-pae) sRp -- Scott Parish Signed-off-by: srparish@us.ibm.com _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel