On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 05:19:57PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> First, the leaf test would have to be == 0, because I prepared the
> patch on the first 4.3 pull request instead of the latest Linus
> tree. However even this would not be a good change, because
>
> is_shadow_present_pte(spte) == !(
On 21/09/2015 17:10, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> On 20/09/2015 18:48, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>> [26421.593927] -- spte 0x3e5a22027 level 4.
>> [26421.598228] -- spte 0x38a00b027 level 3.
>> [26421.602505] -- spte 0x387334027 level 2.
>> [26421.602506] -- spte 0x000b8f67 l
On 20/09/2015 18:48, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> [26421.593927] -- spte 0x3e5a22027 level 4.
> [26421.598228] -- spte 0x38a00b027 level 3.
> [26421.602505] -- spte 0x387334027 level 2.
> [26421.602506] -- spte 0x000b8f67 level 1.
> [26421.602506] [ cut here ]-
On 20/09/2015 18:48, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> [26421.584526] walk_shadow_page_get_mmio_spte: detect reserved bits on spte,
> addr 0xb8000, dump hierarchy:
> [26421.593927] -- spte 0x3e5a22027 level 4.
> [26421.598228] -- spte 0x38a00b027 level 3.
> [26421.602505] -- spte 0x387334027
Hey Paolo,
just triggered this on rc1+tip with a 32-bit guest:
[26421.303750] ===
[26421.307952] [ INFO: suspicious RCU usage. ]
[26421.312161] 4.3.0-rc1+ #1 Not tainted
[26421.312161] ---
[26421.312162] include/linux/kvm_host.h:488
5 matches
Mail list logo