On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 02:39:58AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 21.09.16 at 00:35, <paul.c....@intel.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 09:50:15AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: > >> > >> Paul, there's been no reply to > >> https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2016-09/msg00380.html > > > > The refered to patch, commit a1b1572833, adds a check for vmfunc. > > I look a little time to look at the SDM and finally found the reference. > > The vmfunc can be found in Table A-6 "Opcode Extensions for One- and Two- > > byte Opcodes by Group Number" on page A-18 Vol. 2D of the > > e64-ia-32-architectures-software-developer-manual-325462.pdf. > > The values for vmfunc match the values in the code. > > I also took the liberty of looking at the other existing cases in the > > switch statement, and can find RDTSCP and INVLPG. The CLZERO extension > > value is a mystery to me. > > Well - the question raised was whether the documentation is > perhaps wrong.
VMFUNC allowing 66, F2, and F3 prefixes when > other opcodes in its neighborhood (e.g. xsetbv, xtest, xend) > don't seems at least suspicious. Thanks for the clearer problem statement. > Extensions originating from AMD > (rdtscp, clzero) can't be reasonably taken for reference. > > Jan > I'll check.... _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
