On 07/04/2016 23:53, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 08.04.16 at 00:30, wrote:
>> On 07/04/2016 22:55, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 07.04.16 at 23:39, wrote:
@@ -1763,7 +1765,8 @@ static void load_segments(struct vcpu *n)
vcpu_info(n, evtchn_upcall_mask) = 1;
>>> On 08.04.16 at 00:30, wrote:
> On 07/04/2016 22:55, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 07.04.16 at 23:39, wrote:
>>> @@ -1763,7 +1765,8 @@ static void load_segments(struct vcpu *n)
>>> vcpu_info(n, evtchn_upcall_mask) = 1;
>>>
>>> regs->entry_vector |= TRAP_syscall;
>
On 07/04/2016 22:55, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 07.04.16 at 23:39, wrote:
>> @@ -1763,7 +1765,8 @@ static void load_segments(struct vcpu *n)
>> vcpu_info(n, evtchn_upcall_mask) = 1;
>>
>> regs->entry_vector |= TRAP_syscall;
>> -regs->_eflags &= 0xFF
>>> On 07.04.16 at 23:39, wrote:
> @@ -1763,7 +1765,8 @@ static void load_segments(struct vcpu *n)
> vcpu_info(n, evtchn_upcall_mask) = 1;
>
> regs->entry_vector |= TRAP_syscall;
> -regs->_eflags &= 0xFFFCBEFFUL;
> +regs->_eflags &=
The existing vIOPL interface is hard to use, and need not be.
Introduce a VMASSIST with which a guest can opt-in to having vIOPL behaviour
consistenly with native hardware.
Specifically:
- virtual iopl updated from do_iret() hypercalls.
- virtual iopl reported in bounce frames.
- guest kernels
