On 24.06.15 at 22:29, edmund.h.wh...@intel.com wrote:
On 06/24/2015 05:47 AM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
+case EXIT_REASON_VMFUNC:
+if ( vmx_vmfunc_intercept(regs) == X86EMUL_OKAY )
This is currently an unconditional failure, and I don't see subsequent
patches which alter
On 22/06/15 19:56, Ed White wrote:
From: Ravi Sahita ravi.sah...@intel.com
Signed-off-by: Ravi Sahita ravi.sah...@intel.com
---
xen/arch/x86/hvm/emulate.c | 13 +++--
xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c | 30 ++
On 06/24/2015 05:47 AM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
+case EXIT_REASON_VMFUNC:
+if ( vmx_vmfunc_intercept(regs) == X86EMUL_OKAY )
This is currently an unconditional failure, and I don't see subsequent
patches which alter vmx_vmfunc_intercept(). Shouldn't
vmx_vmfunc_intercept() switch
On 22.06.15 at 20:56, edmund.h.wh...@intel.com wrote:
@@ -1826,6 +1827,20 @@ static void vmx_vcpu_update_vmfunc_ve(struct vcpu *v)
vmx_vmcs_exit(v);
}
+static bool_t vmx_vcpu_emulate_vmfunc(struct cpu_user_regs *regs)
+{
+bool_t rc = 0;
+
+if ( !cpu_has_vmx_vmfunc
From: Ravi Sahita ravi.sah...@intel.com
Signed-off-by: Ravi Sahita ravi.sah...@intel.com
---
xen/arch/x86/hvm/emulate.c | 13 +++--
xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c | 30 ++
xen/arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c | 8
