[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120710153747.GA1731@aepfle.de>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 17:37:47 +0200
From: Olaf Hering <olaf@...fle.de>
To: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@...rix.com>
Cc: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
Daniel Kiper <dkiper@...-space.pl>,
"xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com" <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
"kexec@...ts.infradead.org" <kexec@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] incorrect layout of globals from head_64.S during
kexec boot
On Tue, Jul 10, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-07-10 at 10:51 -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 08:46:34AM -0600, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2012-07-10 at 10:14 -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > > > Which brings me to another question - say we do use this patch, what
> > > > if the decompressor overwrites the old kernels .data section. Won't
> > > > we run into this problem again?
> > >
> > > I've not really been following this thread that closely but wouldn't the
> > > right answer be for the original kernel to unmap the shared info on
> > > kexec? Or maybe remap it up to some high/reserved address? Can it read
> >
> > That would be the right answer I think, but I don't see the a VCPU_deregister
> > call (only VCPU_register).
>
> Is the issue here vcpuinfo or the shared info (or both)?
shared info is the issue in PVonHVM.
Olaf
--
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