On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 12:07 PM Jan Beulich wrote:
>
> On 17.03.2022 16:59, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 11:06 AM Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>
> >> On 17.03.2022 15:43, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 9:56 AM Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 10.03.2022 19:44,
On 17.03.2022 16:59, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 11:06 AM Jan Beulich wrote:
>>
>> On 17.03.2022 15:43, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 9:56 AM Jan Beulich wrote:
On 10.03.2022 19:44, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
> @@ -1155,6 +1154,8 @@ static int
On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 11:06 AM Jan Beulich wrote:
>
> On 17.03.2022 15:43, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 9:56 AM Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> On 10.03.2022 19:44, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
> >>> @@ -1155,6 +1154,8 @@ static int cf_check hvm_load_cpu_ctxt(struct domain
> >>> *d,
On 17.03.2022 15:43, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 9:56 AM Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 10.03.2022 19:44, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
>>> @@ -1155,6 +1154,8 @@ static int cf_check hvm_load_cpu_ctxt(struct domain
>>> *d, hvm_domain_context_t *h)
>>> v->arch.dr6 = ctxt.dr6;
>>>
On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 9:56 AM Jan Beulich wrote:
>
> On 10.03.2022 19:44, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
> > During VM fork resetting a failed vmentry has been observed when the reset
> > is performed immediately after a STI instruction executed. This is due to
> > the guest interruptibility state in
On 17.03.2022 12:06, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
> Another question I would be interested to hear from the maintainers is in
> regards to the hvm context compat macros. Right now they differentiate
> between hvm hw cpu struct versions based on size. So since this patch
> doesn't change the size how is
On 10.03.2022 19:44, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
> During VM fork resetting a failed vmentry has been observed when the reset
> is performed immediately after a STI instruction executed. This is due to
> the guest interruptibility state in the VMCS being modified by STI but the
> subsequent reset
On Thu, Mar 17, 2022, 2:09 AM Tian, Kevin wrote:
> > From: Tamas K Lengyel
> > Sent: Monday, March 14, 2022 8:14 PM
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 3:22 AM Tian, Kevin
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > From: Lengyel, Tamas
> > > > Sent: Friday, March 11, 2022 2:45 AM
> > > >
> > > > During VM fork
> From: Tamas K Lengyel
> Sent: Monday, March 14, 2022 8:14 PM
>
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 3:22 AM Tian, Kevin wrote:
> >
> > > From: Lengyel, Tamas
> > > Sent: Friday, March 11, 2022 2:45 AM
> > >
> > > During VM fork resetting a failed vmentry has been observed when the
> reset
> > > is
On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 3:22 AM Tian, Kevin wrote:
>
> > From: Lengyel, Tamas
> > Sent: Friday, March 11, 2022 2:45 AM
> >
> > During VM fork resetting a failed vmentry has been observed when the reset
> > is performed immediately after a STI instruction executed. This is due to
> > the guest
> From: Lengyel, Tamas
> Sent: Friday, March 11, 2022 2:45 AM
>
> During VM fork resetting a failed vmentry has been observed when the reset
> is performed immediately after a STI instruction executed. This is due to
> the guest interruptibility state in the VMCS being modified by STI but the
>
During VM fork resetting a failed vmentry has been observed when the reset
is performed immediately after a STI instruction executed. This is due to
the guest interruptibility state in the VMCS being modified by STI but the
subsequent reset removes the IF bit from FLAGS, causing the failed
12 matches
Mail list logo
