> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:jbeul...@suse.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 6, 2017 10:28 PM
>
> Doing so may not only confuse them, but will - on VMX - lead to
> VMRESUME failures. Add respective ASSERT()s where the fields get set
> to guard against future similar issues (or - in the restore case -
>
On 04/06/2017 11:11 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 06.04.17 at 16:59, wrote:
>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/svm/svm.c
>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/svm/svm.c
>>> @@ -269,13 +269,23 @@ static int svm_vmcb_restore(struct vcpu
>>> struct vmcb_struct *vmcb = v->arch.hvm_svm.vmcb;
>>> struct p2m_dom
On 06/04/17 15:59, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/svm/svm.c
>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/svm/svm.c
>> @@ -269,13 +269,23 @@ static int svm_vmcb_restore(struct vcpu
>> struct vmcb_struct *vmcb = v->arch.hvm_svm.vmcb;
>> struct p2m_domain *p2m = p2m_get_hostp2m(v->domain);
>>
>>> On 06.04.17 at 16:59, wrote:
>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/svm/svm.c
>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/svm/svm.c
>> @@ -269,13 +269,23 @@ static int svm_vmcb_restore(struct vcpu
>> struct vmcb_struct *vmcb = v->arch.hvm_svm.vmcb;
>> struct p2m_domain *p2m = p2m_get_hostp2m(v->domain);
>>
>> -
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/svm/svm.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/svm/svm.c
> @@ -269,13 +269,23 @@ static int svm_vmcb_restore(struct vcpu
> struct vmcb_struct *vmcb = v->arch.hvm_svm.vmcb;
> struct p2m_domain *p2m = p2m_get_hostp2m(v->domain);
>
> -if ( c->pending_valid &&
> -
>>> On 06.04.17 at 16:33, wrote:
> On 06/04/17 15:27, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> Doing so may not only confuse them, but will - on VMX - lead to
>> VMRESUME failures. Add respective ASSERT()s where the fields get set
>> to guard against future similar issues (or - in the restore case -
>> fail the oper
On 06/04/17 15:27, Jan Beulich wrote:
> Doing so may not only confuse them, but will - on VMX - lead to
> VMRESUME failures. Add respective ASSERT()s where the fields get set
> to guard against future similar issues (or - in the restore case -
> fail the operation). In that latter code at once conv
Doing so may not only confuse them, but will - on VMX - lead to
VMRESUME failures. Add respective ASSERT()s where the fields get set
to guard against future similar issues (or - in the restore case -
fail the operation). In that latter code at once convert the mis-used
gdprintk() to dprintk(), as t
