On 06/01/16 15:44, Jan Beulich wrote:
> Ping?
Sorry - this is still on my todo list, but I have more urgent work
currently.
~Andrew
>
On 15.12.15 at 09:53, wrote:
> On 10.12.15 at 21:03, wrote:
>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c
>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emu
Ping?
>>> On 15.12.15 at 09:53, wrote:
On 10.12.15 at 21:03, wrote:
>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c
>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c
>> @@ -570,8 +570,10 @@ do{ asm volatile (
>>
>
>>\
>> /* Fetch next
>>> On 10.12.15 at 21:03, wrote:
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c
> @@ -570,8 +570,10 @@ do{ asm volatile (
>\
> /* Fetch next part of the instruction being emulated. */
> #define
>>> On 11.12.15 at 12:12, wrote:
> On 11/12/15 10:47, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> Furthermore, doesn't this make the wrapping-inside-an-insn
>> situation worse (i.e. what looks broken for 32- and 64-bit modes
>> now gets broken also for 16-bit mode)?
>
> I don't understand which "broken" you are referr
On 11/12/15 10:47, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 10.12.15 at 21:03, wrote:
>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c
>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c
>> @@ -570,8 +570,10 @@ do{ asm volatile (
>>
>>\
>> /* Fetch next part o
>>> On 10.12.15 at 21:03, wrote:
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c
> @@ -570,8 +570,10 @@ do{ asm volatile (
>\
> /* Fetch next part of the instruction being emulated. */
> #define
_regs.eip needs to be truncated after having size added to it, or bad
situations can occur. e.g. emulating an instruction which crosses the 4GB
boundary causes _regs.eip to become invalid (have some of the upper 32 bits
set), and fail vmentry checks when returning back to the guest.
The comment /*
