[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4CE1046F.8060100@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 11:59:11 +0200
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To: Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@...fujitsu.com>
CC: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] KVM: MMU: retry #PF for softmmu
On 11/15/2010 11:55 AM, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> >> > Or another thread may have mmap()ed something else over the
> >> > same address.
> >>
> >> The mmap virtual address is also visible for other threads since the
> >> threads
> >> have the same page table, so i think this case is the same as above?
> >
> > Again, don't we install the wrong spte in this case?
> >
>
> I think it doesn't corrupts spte since we will walk guest page table again
> and map it to shadow pages when we retry #PF.
Well, you're right, we don't use any gfn/pfn info from the async page fault.
However, we're still not modelling the cpu accurately. For example we
will set dirty and accessed bits, or inject a page fault if the gpte
turns out to be not present.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists