> On 10 Sep 2020, at 15:00, Bertrand Marquis <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On 10 Sep 2020, at 14:56, Jan Beulich <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> On 10.09.2020 15:46, Bertrand Marquis wrote:
>>> Some open questions:
>>> - should we allow to register an area using both hypercalls or should it be
>>> exclusive ?
>>
>> I thought it was already clarified that to a certain degree both need
>> to remain usable at least in sequence, to allow transitioning control
>> between entirely independent entities (bootloader -> kernel -> dump-
>> kernel, for example).
>
> Sorry my wording was not clear here
>
> Should we allow to register 2 areas at the same time using both hypercalls
> (one with
> virtual address and one with physical address) or should they be exclusive ie
> one or
> the other but not both at the same time
>
>>
>>> - should we backport the support for this hypercall in older kernel
>>> releases ?
>>
>> It's a bug fix to KPTI, and as such ought to be at least eligible for
>> considering doing so?
>
> That will mean also backport in Linux. What should be the scope ?
>
> Bertrand
>
>>
>> Jan
>
> IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are
> confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
> recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the
> contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the
> information in any medium. Thank you.
Sorry the disclaimer should not appear anymore, no idea what is going wrong on
our side here
Bertrand
