Il 21/07/2014 23:30, Nadav Amit ha scritto:
> Few comments to see we are on the same page:
>
> On 7/21/14, 3:18 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> Il 21/07/2014 13:37, Nadav Amit ha scritto:
>>> +int kvm_exception_type(unsigned int nr)
>>
>> The manual calls this the exception class.
> Yes, but it also calls it exception "type" (see table 6-1
> "Protected-Mode Exceptions and Interrupts" on the SDM).
> I called it exception type, since there is a function exception_class
> that is used to handle nested exceptions.
Ok.
>>> + case VE_VECTOR:
>>> + return EXCPT_FAULT;
>>> + case DB_VECTOR:
>>> + return EXCPT_FAULT_OR_TRAP;
>>
>> It is only a fault for instruction fetch breakpoints. You can modify
>> kvm_vcpu_check_breakpoint to set RF, add a comment here that fault
>> handling is done elsewhere, and return EXCPT_TRAP.
> Unless I am mistaken, kvm_vcpu_check_breakpoint checks only for
> instruction breakpoint. Since instruction breakpoint should not cause RF
> to be set, this function should not be changed.
You're right ("For any fault-class exception except a debug exception
generated in response to an instruction breakpoint, the
value pushed for RF is 1"). It's the debug exception handler that has
to set RF (and then iretd/iretq will modify RF).
> Anyhow, I would return EXCPT_TRAP on DB_VECTOR.
Yeah, just add a comment that it can be a fault for instruction fetch
breakpoints, but we treat it as a trap for the purposes of (not) setting RF.
Alternatively, just rename the function to exception_sets_rf and return
true/false.
Paolo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
