On 29.03.2023 16:20, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > 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.
Yeah, dropping would be fine with me. Plus you're the maintainer anyway ... Jan
