>>> On 11.07.15 at 22:01, <[email protected]> wrote:
>> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:[email protected]]
>>Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 2:31 AM
>>
>>>>> On 10.07.15 at 02:52, <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> @@ -3234,6 +3256,13 @@ void vmx_vmexit_handler(struct cpu_user_regs
>>*regs)
>>> update_guest_eip();
>>> break;
>>>
>>> + case EXIT_REASON_VMFUNC:
>>> + if ( vmx_vmfunc_intercept(regs) == X86EMUL_EXCEPTION )
>>> + hvm_inject_hw_exception(TRAP_invalid_op,
>>HVM_DELIVER_NO_ERROR_CODE);
>>> + else
>>> + update_guest_eip();
>>> + break;
>>
>>How about X86EMUL_UNHANDLEABLE and X86EMUL_RETRY? As said before,
>>either get this right, or simply fold the relatively pointless helper into
> here.
>
> Sure I can add the other error conditions but note that they will be handled
> as EXCEPTION.
The reason for this would need to go into ...
> Let me explain the point of the relatively pointless :-) helper
> was to have the interface complete so that if someone in the future wanted to
> handle VMFUNC exits (perhaps for lazily managing EPTP list for nesting
> scenarios) they could do that by extending the vmx_vmfunc_intercept. I can
> also add a comment there - Will that be sufficient? (I'm trying to avoid
> another revision after I revise it to add the other exception conditions as
> stated)
... such a comment. And yes, I'd be as fine with just a comment as
with the wrapper being folded in.
>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c
>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c
>>> @@ -3816,8 +3816,9 @@ x86_emulate(
>>> struct segment_register reg;
>>> unsigned long base, limit, cr0, cr0w;
>>>
>>> - if ( modrm == 0xdf ) /* invlpga */
>>> + switch( modrm )
>>> {
>>> + case 0xdf: /* invlpga AMD */
>>> generate_exception_if(!in_protmode(ctxt, ops), EXC_UD, -1);
>>> generate_exception_if(!mode_ring0(), EXC_GP, 0);
>>> fail_if(ops->invlpg == NULL);
>>
>>The diff now looks much better. Yet I don't see why you added "AMD"
>>to the comment - we don't elsewhere note that certain instructions are
>>vendor specific (and really which ones are also changes over time, see RDTSCP
>>for a prominent example).
>>
>
> I thought it would be better to specify instructions that are unique to a
> specific CPU.
> But I can remove it.
Yes please.
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
