On 10/03/2017 10:31, Yu Zhang wrote:
>> We can also add a module parameter to force emulation, so that it will
>> be possible to test UMIP emulation on newer processors too.
>
> Thanks for your reply, Paolo. :-)
>
> Well, my previous understanding is that there might be a situation on a
> machine
On 3/10/2017 5:31 PM, Yu Zhang wrote:
On 3/10/2017 4:36 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 10/03/2017 09:02, Yu Zhang wrote:
Besides, is this all the test for UMIP unit test? I.e. do we
need to
construct a scenario in the test to trigger vm exit and let hypervisor
inject a GP fault? - I did n
On 3/10/2017 4:36 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 10/03/2017 09:02, Yu Zhang wrote:
Besides, is this all the test for UMIP unit test? I.e. do we need to
construct a scenario in the test to trigger vm exit and let hypervisor
inject a GP fault? - I did not see this scenario in this patch. Or any
On 10/03/2017 09:02, Yu Zhang wrote:
>> Besides, is this all the test for UMIP unit test? I.e. do we need to
>> construct a scenario in the test to trigger vm exit and let hypervisor
>> inject a GP fault? - I did not see this scenario in this patch. Or any
>> other suggestions? :-)
>
> Hi Paol
On 3/1/2017 5:04 PM, Yu Zhang wrote:
On 12/13/2016 7:03 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 13/12/2016 05:03, Li, Liang Z wrote:
Hi Paolo,
We intended to enable UMIP for KVM and found you had already worked
on it.
Do you have any plan for the following patch set? It's there
anything else you expe
- Original Message -
> From: "Yu Zhang"
> To: "Paolo Bonzini"
> Cc: "qian ouyang" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
> k...@vger.kernel.org
> Sent: Wednesday, March 1, 2017 10:04:17 AM
> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] KVM: Emulate UMIP (o
On 12/13/2016 7:03 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 13/12/2016 05:03, Li, Liang Z wrote:
Hi Paolo,
We intended to enable UMIP for KVM and found you had already worked on it.
Do you have any plan for the following patch set? It's there anything else you
expect
us help to do?
Yes, I plan to resen
On 13/12/2016 05:03, Li, Liang Z wrote:
> Hi Paolo,
>
> We intended to enable UMIP for KVM and found you had already worked on it.
> Do you have any plan for the following patch set? It's there anything else
> you expect
> us help to do?
Yes, I plan to resend these patches for 4.11.
Paolo
> UMIP (User-Mode Instruction Prevention) is a feature of future Intel
> processors (Cannonlake?) that blocks SLDT, SGDT, STR, SIDT and SMSW from
> user-mode processes.
>
> The idea here is to use virtualization intercepts to emulate UMIP; it slows
> down the instructions when they're executed in
On 13/07/2016 10:29, Yang Zhang wrote:
> On 2016/7/13 3:20, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> UMIP (User-Mode Instruction Prevention) is a feature of future
>> Intel processors (Cannonlake?) that blocks SLDT, SGDT, STR, SIDT
>
> I remember there is no Cannonlake any more. It should be Icelake. :)
>
>> an
On 2016/7/13 3:20, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
UMIP (User-Mode Instruction Prevention) is a feature of future
Intel processors (Cannonlake?) that blocks SLDT, SGDT, STR, SIDT
I remember there is no Cannonlake any more. It should be Icelake. :)
and SMSW from user-mode processes.
Do you know the bac
11 matches
Mail list logo