On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 03:22:34PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 29.03.2023 12:18, Roger Pau Monne wrote: > > @@ -419,9 +424,8 @@ static int adjacent_write(const struct domain *d, const > > struct vpci_msix *msix, > > * assumed to be equal or bigger (8 bytes) than the length of any > > access > > * handled here. > > */ > > - if ( (VMSIX_ADDR_IN_RANGE(addr, vpci, VPCI_MSIX_PBA) || > > - VMSIX_ADDR_IN_RANGE(addr + len - 1, vpci, VPCI_MSIX_PBA)) && > > - !is_hardware_domain(d) ) > > + if ( VMSIX_ADDR_IN_RANGE(addr, vpci, VPCI_MSIX_PBA) && > > + (!access_allowed(msix->pdev, addr, len) || > > !is_hardware_domain(d)) ) > > /* Ignore writes to PBA for DomUs, it's undefined behavior. */ > > return X86EMUL_OKAY; > > While preparing the backport, where I'm folding this into the earlier > patch, I've noticed that this change has now left the comment stale > (the problematic part if just out of context). Not sure though whether > that's worth yet another fixup patch.
I see, thanks for noticing. I think I can likely adjust in some further change, or even just drop it, not sure the comment is that relevant anymore if both the PBA and the access must be aligned now. Roger.
