On 16/11/06 5:11 am, "Herbert Xu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The only "harm" done to a host is that the process will take as much CPU
>> as it can get. This is really only a problem in Xen because the device
>> model is in Domain-0. Once the device model is in a different domain,
>> it doesn'
On 15/11/06 11:12, "Herbert Xu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Could we add a recursion counter to the memory-access functions, and bail if
>> it reaches some limit?
>
> Yes that would work too. However, chips such as rtl8139 should never
> do MMIO in this case (the real hardware would never allo
On 15/11/06 2:58 am, "Herbert Xu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> It isn't always system memory. Some DMA controllers deliberately write to
>> device FIFOs. There are also several devices which map areas of onboard RAM.
>> At minimum you need to make those to use RAM mappings rather than MMIO.
>
>
On Thu, Nov 16, 2006 at 07:52:45AM +, Keir Fraser wrote:
>
> Each qemu 'stub domain' will be dedicated to a single guest. Adding a
You're right of course. Somehow I was thinking of having the physical
NIC in the qemu domain which obviously isn't the case.
> recursion counter to the memory a
On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 03:02:02PM +, Paul Brook wrote:
> > However, chips such as rtl8139 should never
> > do MMIO in this case (the real hardware would never allow that to occur)
>
> Really? Why wouldn't it work on real hardware?
For rtl8139 it would cause a Master Abort.
Cheers,
--
Visit
> However, chips such as rtl8139 should never
> do MMIO in this case (the real hardware would never allow that to occur)
Really? Why wouldn't it work on real hardware?
Paul
___
Qemu-devel mailing list
Qemu-devel@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mail
On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 07:55:48AM +, Keir Fraser wrote:
>
> > I'm not suggesting that we change all existing users of cpu_physical_*
> > to a new interface that only accessed RAM. However, for cases where it
> > is obvious that only system RAM is intended (e.g., rtl8139), it makes
> > sense t
