Thank you very much for your guidance. <br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Hideki EIRAKU <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:hdk@igel.co.jp">hdk@igel.co.jp</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> <div class="im">From: Nafise Sadat Moosavi <<a href="mailto:ns.moosavi@gmail.com">ns.moosavi@gmail.com</a>><br> </div>Subject: [BitVisor-devel-en:11] Re: Bitvisor memory protection<br> Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2011 15:23:08 +0430<br> Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:BANLkTinW9ZNT0By4FjSg69QfeMAn-p92_Q@mail.gmail.com">BANLkTinW9ZNT0By4FjSg69QfeMAn-p92_Q@mail.gmail.com</a>><br> <div class="im"><br> > Is it possible to implement a complete shadow paging mechanism (like XEN) in<br> > Bitvisor in order to have more complicated protection mechanisms for memory?<br> <br> </div>BitVisor already has a complete shadow paging mechanism. I did not<br> want to implement such complex mechanism in BitVisor, but it is needed<br> by BitVisor's memory protection and MMIO hooks. Therefore, the<br> gmm_pass_gp2hp() function can have more complicated protection<br> mechanisms or address translation.<br> <br> --<br> <div class="im">Hideki EIRAKU <<a href="mailto:hdk@igel.co.jp">hdk@igel.co.jp</a>><br> </div>_______________________________________________<br> BitVisor-devel-en mailing list<br> <a href="mailto:BitVisor-devel-en@bitvisor.org">BitVisor-devel-en@bitvisor.org</a><br> <a href="https://www.bitvisor.org/mailman/listinfo/bitvisor-devel-en" target="_blank">https://www.bitvisor.org/mailman/listinfo/bitvisor-devel-en</a><br> </blockquote></div><br>