On 09/06/2017 07:30, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> 2017-06-08 19:52 GMT+08:00 Paolo Bonzini :
>>
>> 3) add an async_page_fault member to vcpu->arch.exception
>
> Do you think we should also add an async_page_fault field to
> x86_exception, then pass down to kvm_inject_page_fault() through
> x86_exception?
2017-06-08 19:52 GMT+08:00 Paolo Bonzini :
>
> 3) add an async_page_fault member to vcpu->arch.exception
Do you think we should also add an async_page_fault field to
x86_exception, then pass down to kvm_inject_page_fault() through
x86_exception? Maybe we should modify
kvm_queue_exception_e/kvm_mul
On 08/06/2017 14:32, Wanpeng Li wrote:
>>> I change the
>>> condition to "nr == PF_VECTOR && error_code == 0" to intercept async_pf,
>>> however,
>>> the below bug will be splatted:
>> Right, because error_code == 0 is a valid error code.
>>
>> For stable releases, this should be enough:
>
> We
2017-06-08 19:52 GMT+08:00 Paolo Bonzini :
>
>
> On 08/06/2017 11:30, Wanpeng Li wrote:
>> However, I found that "nr == PF_VECTOR && vmx->apf_reason != 0" never be true
>> in nested_vmx_check_exception(). SVM depends on the similar stuff in
>> nested_svm_intercept() which makes me confusing how it
On 08/06/2017 11:30, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> However, I found that "nr == PF_VECTOR && vmx->apf_reason != 0" never be true
> in nested_vmx_check_exception(). SVM depends on the similar stuff in
> nested_svm_intercept() which makes me confusing how it can works. In
> addition,
> vmx/svm->apf_reaso
5 matches
Mail list logo
