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). But perhaps the XENMEM_decrease_reservation for the particular MFN is the answer to do a VCPU "de-register" ? > the original address used by hvmloader at start of day and reuse that? Wait, we can map multiple shared_info? Ooh, somehow I thought the guest could only do one registration. > > Ian. >
