Hi,
At 11:50 -0500 on 02 Jan (1230897005), Mike Sun wrote:
> /* Foreign mappings into guests in shadow external mode don't
> * contribute to writeable mapping refcounts. (This allows the
> * qemu-dm helper process in dom0 to map the domain's memory without
> * messing up the count of "real" writable mappings.) */
> okay = (((l1f & _PAGE_RW) &&
> !(unlikely(paging_mode_external(d) && (d != curr->domain))))
> ? get_page_and_type(page, d, PGT_writable_page)
> : get_page(page, d));
>
> Basically, I'm trying to make an HVM guest's pages writable again via
> a hypercall from dom0, and so this piece of code messes up the type
> count since I'm actually changing "proper" writeable mapping
> refcounts.
Right; manipulating the shadow from dom0 will make a writeable shadow
PTE with no matching typecount and when it's torn down later the
typecount will underflow. :(
> For now, I'm just calling an extra
> "get_page_and_type(page, d, PGT_writable_page)" manually, and I think
> it solves this problem, but I'm getting a different kind of kernel
> panic now where it complains about not being able to
> "rm_write_access()" due to some special mappings. Any ideas?
That's the opposite problem. The shadow code needs to remove all the
writeable mappings of a page (because the guest is using it as a
pagetable) and finds that after removing all writeable shadow PTEs that
map the page, the typecount has not reached zero. So:
- there is some other special reason for the frame to have a
typecount. Or,
- somehow you've removed a writeable shadow entry without decrementing
the type count. That shouldn't be a problem because we know that
actions by dom0 (p2m changes, for example) cause writeable shadow
PTEs to be torn down (via shadow_put_page_from_l1e) correctly. Or,
- you've accidentally called get_page_and_type() once too often,
creating two typecounts for only one shadow PTE.
This is all confused further by the fact that the checks for these
un-type-counted mappings in put_page_from_l1e() doesn't quite match the
check in get_page_from_l1e(); ISTR there's a difference in the semantics
of the domain pointer argument to the two functions; maybe Keir can
refresh my memory.
Cheers,
Tim.
--
Tim Deegan <Tim.Deegan@xxxxxxxxxx>
Principal Software Engineer, Citrix Systems (R&D) Ltd.
[Company #02300071, SL9 0DZ, UK.]
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel