lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [May]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 0/2] Dirtying, failing memop: don't indicate suppression
From
Am 12.05.22 um 15:10 schrieb Janis Schoetterl-Glausch:
> If a memop fails due to key checked protection, after already having
> written to the guest, don't indicate suppression to the guest, as that
> would imply that memory wasn't modified.
>
> This could be considered a fix to the code introducing storage key
> support, however this is a bug in KVM only if we emulate an
> instructions writing to an operand spanning multiple pages, which I
> don't believe we do.
>
> v2 -> v3
> * tweak commit message
> * explicitly reset the protection code to 0 on termination
> * use variable to pass termination arg
> * add documentation
> * fix magic constant in selftest
>
> Given the changes I did not pick up the r-b's.

Claudio, you had reviewed the first one. Is this still valid?

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-05-17 14:29    [W:0.088 / U:0.140 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site