On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 8:03 PM, Matt Mullins wrote:
> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 02:54:21PM +0200, Radim Krčmář wrote:
>> 2017-05-29 15:24+0200, Gioh Kim:
>> > If so, why type is checked when setting segment registers?
>>
>> No idea. 19bca6ab75d8 ("KVM: SVM: Fix cross vendor migration issue with
>>
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 02:54:21PM +0200, Radim Krčmář wrote:
> 2017-05-29 15:24+0200, Gioh Kim:
> > If so, why type is checked when setting segment registers?
>
> No idea. 19bca6ab75d8 ("KVM: SVM: Fix cross vendor migration issue with
> unusable bit") also moved the assigment up to initialize it
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 02:54:21PM +0200, Radim Krčmář wrote:
> 2017-05-29 15:24+0200, Gioh Kim:
> > Current code sets unusable as 1 if present is 1 and type is 0.
> > In Long mode, type value in segment descriptor is ignored.
> > So I think type should be ignored when setting the segment registers
2017-05-29 15:24+0200, Gioh Kim:
> Current code sets unusable as 1 if present is 1 and type is 0.
> In Long mode, type value in segment descriptor is ignored.
> So I think type should be ignored when setting the segment registers,
> if type means the descriptor type in the segment descriptor.
>
>
Current code sets unusable as 1 if present is 1 and type is 0.
In Long mode, type value in segment descriptor is ignored.
So I think type should be ignored when setting the segment registers,
if type means the descriptor type in the segment descriptor.
Is the type field of struct kvm_segment the d
5 matches
Mail list logo