>>> On 24.06.15 at 22:29, 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 vmx_vmfunc_intercept
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() s
>>> On 22.06.15 at 20:56, 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 && altp2mhvm_active(
On 22/06/15 19:56, Ed White wrote:
> From: Ravi Sahita
>
> Signed-off-by: Ravi Sahita
> ---
> xen/arch/x86/hvm/emulate.c | 13 +++--
> xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c | 30 ++
> xen/arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c | 8
> xen/arc
From: Ravi Sahita
Signed-off-by: Ravi Sahita
---
xen/arch/x86/hvm/emulate.c | 13 +++--
xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c | 30 ++
xen/arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c | 8
xen/arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.h | 4
xen/inc
