Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 08/15] x86/hvm: Reposition the modification of raw segment data from the VMCB/VMCS

2016-11-24 Thread Jan Beulich
>>> On 24.11.16 at 18:22, wrote: > On 24/11/16 15:25, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 23.11.16 at 16:38, wrote: >>> +case x86_seg_tr: >>> +ASSERT(reg->attr.fields.p); /* Usable. */ >>> +ASSERT(!reg->attr.fields.s); /* System segment. */ >>> +

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 08/15] x86/hvm: Reposition the modification of raw segment data from the VMCB/VMCS

2016-11-24 Thread Andrew Cooper
On 24/11/16 15:25, Jan Beulich wrote: On 23.11.16 at 16:38, wrote: >> +case x86_seg_tr: >> +ASSERT(reg->attr.fields.p); /* Usable. */ >> +ASSERT(!reg->attr.fields.s); /* System segment. */ >> +ASSERT(!(reg->sel & 0x4));

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 08/15] x86/hvm: Reposition the modification of raw segment data from the VMCB/VMCS

2016-11-24 Thread Jan Beulich
>>> On 23.11.16 at 16:38, wrote: > +case x86_seg_tr: > +ASSERT(reg->attr.fields.p); /* Usable. */ > +ASSERT(!reg->attr.fields.s); /* System segment. */ > +ASSERT(!(reg->sel & 0x4)); /* !TI. */ > +ASSERT(reg->att

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 08/15] x86/hvm: Reposition the modification of raw segment data from the VMCB/VMCS

2016-11-23 Thread Tian, Kevin
> From: Andrew Cooper [mailto:andrew.coop...@citrix.com] > Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2016 11:39 PM > > Intel VT-x and AMD SVM provide access to the full segment descriptor cache via > fields in the VMCB/VMCS. However, the bits which are actually checked by > hardware and preserved across vmen

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 08/15] x86/hvm: Reposition the modification of raw segment data from the VMCB/VMCS

2016-11-23 Thread Andrew Cooper
On 23/11/16 19:41, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: > On 11/23/2016 02:28 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote: >>> SVM requires attributes of any NULL segment to be zero. >> Where is this claim made? Vol2 recommends that the VMM clear all >> attributes, but the wording of the previous paragraph suggests that the >> att

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 08/15] x86/hvm: Reposition the modification of raw segment data from the VMCB/VMCS

2016-11-23 Thread Boris Ostrovsky
On 11/23/2016 02:28 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote: > >> SVM requires attributes of any NULL segment to be zero. > Where is this claim made? Vol2 recommends that the VMM clear all > attributes, but the wording of the previous paragraph suggests that the > attributes would be ignored in this case. The %

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 08/15] x86/hvm: Reposition the modification of raw segment data from the VMCB/VMCS

2016-11-23 Thread Andrew Cooper
On 23/11/16 19:01, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: > On 11/23/2016 10:38 AM, Andrew Cooper wrote: >> Intel VT-x and AMD SVM provide access to the full segment descriptor cache >> via >> fields in the VMCB/VMCS. However, the bits which are actually checked by >> hardware and preserved across vmentry/exit a

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 08/15] x86/hvm: Reposition the modification of raw segment data from the VMCB/VMCS

2016-11-23 Thread Boris Ostrovsky
On 11/23/2016 10:38 AM, Andrew Cooper wrote: > Intel VT-x and AMD SVM provide access to the full segment descriptor cache via > fields in the VMCB/VMCS. However, the bits which are actually checked by > hardware and preserved across vmentry/exit are inconsistent, and the vendor > accessor function

[Xen-devel] [PATCH 08/15] x86/hvm: Reposition the modification of raw segment data from the VMCB/VMCS

2016-11-23 Thread Andrew Cooper
Intel VT-x and AMD SVM provide access to the full segment descriptor cache via fields in the VMCB/VMCS. However, the bits which are actually checked by hardware and preserved across vmentry/exit are inconsistent, and the vendor accessor functions perform inconsistent modification to the raw values