>>> On 20.11.14 at 15:35, wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 10:26:31 -0500
> Don Koch wrote:
>
>> If we restore an xsave area from an older xen that has a larger
>> size than the xcr0 bit call for, it is possible to have non-zero
>> data in the unused area if an xsave has ever been done that used
>>
This change can be ignored. Details below.
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 10:26:31 -0500
Don Koch wrote:
> If we restore an xsave area from an older xen that has a larger
> size than the xcr0 bit call for, it is possible to have non-zero
> data in the unused area if an xsave has ever been done that used
>
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 16:35:42 +
Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 18.11.14 at 16:26, wrote:
> > If we restore an xsave area from an older xen that has a larger
> > size than the xcr0 bit call for, it is possible to have non-zero
> > data in the unused area if an xsave has ever been done that used
>
>>> On 18.11.14 at 16:26, wrote:
> If we restore an xsave area from an older xen that has a larger
> size than the xcr0 bit call for, it is possible to have non-zero
> data in the unused area if an xsave has ever been done that used
> that area (e.g. during a context switch). Since the vcpu's xsav
If we restore an xsave area from an older xen that has a larger
size than the xcr0 bit call for, it is possible to have non-zero
data in the unused area if an xsave has ever been done that used
that area (e.g. during a context switch). Since the vcpu's xsave
area is never zeroed after the initial a
