On 27.12.2019 16:26, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 20/12/2019 13:50, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> It is wrong for us to check the base address when there's no LDT in the
>> first place. Once we don't do this check anymore we can also set the
>> base address to a non-canonical value when the LDT is empty.
>>
>
On 20/12/2019 13:50, Jan Beulich wrote:
> It is wrong for us to check the base address when there's no LDT in the
> first place. Once we don't do this check anymore we can also set the
> base address to a non-canonical value when the LDT is empty.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
I've only just spo
It is wrong for us to check the base address when there's no LDT in the
first place. Once we don't do this check anymore we can also set the
base address to a non-canonical value when the LDT is empty.
Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
---
v2: Set v->arch.pv.ldt_base to non-canonical for an empty LDT, p
