On 09/01/15 15:33, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 09.01.15 at 16:09, wrote:
>> On 09/01/15 11:20, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 08.01.15 at 19:49, wrote:
I think hvm_efer_valid() also needs the current EFER and CR0 to work out
what the current LMA should be, and reject any attempt to change
>>> On 09.01.15 at 16:09, wrote:
> On 09/01/15 11:20, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 08.01.15 at 19:49, wrote:
>>> I think hvm_efer_valid() also needs the current EFER and CR0 to work out
>>> what the current LMA should be, and reject any attempt to change it.
>> I.e. this would be needed only for t
On 09/01/15 11:20, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 08.01.15 at 19:49, wrote:
>> On 08/01/15 15:23, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> Following the earlier similar change validating CR4 modifications.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
>>>
>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
>>> @@ -
>>> On 08.01.15 at 19:49, wrote:
> On 08/01/15 15:23, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> Following the earlier similar change validating CR4 modifications.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
>>
>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
>> @@ -1672,20 +1672,53 @@ static int hvm_save_cpu_ctx
On 08/01/15 16:04, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 08.01.15 at 16:56, wrote:
>> At 15:23 + on 08 Jan (1420727005), Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> +if ( (value & EFER_LMSLE) && !cpu_has_lmsl )
>>> +return 0;
>> I see this bit has no CPUID flag, and the docs don't seem to suggest
>> that it would
On 08/01/15 15:23, Jan Beulich wrote:
> Following the earlier similar change validating CR4 modifications.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
>
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
> @@ -1672,20 +1672,53 @@ static int hvm_save_cpu_ctxt(struct doma
> return 0;
> }
>
> -
>>> On 08.01.15 at 16:56, wrote:
> At 15:23 + on 08 Jan (1420727005), Jan Beulich wrote:
>> +if ( (value & EFER_LMSLE) && !cpu_has_lmsl )
>> +return 0;
>
> I see this bit has no CPUID flag, and the docs don't seem to suggest
> that it would ever not be valid. Are there real CPUs
At 15:23 + on 08 Jan (1420727005), Jan Beulich wrote:
> +if ( (value & EFER_LMSLE) && !cpu_has_lmsl )
> +return 0;
I see this bit has no CPUID flag, and the docs don't seem to suggest
that it would ever not be valid. Are there real CPUs where it can't
be set?
My reviewed-by: stan
Following the earlier similar change validating CR4 modifications.
Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
--- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
@@ -1672,20 +1672,53 @@ static int hvm_save_cpu_ctxt(struct doma
return 0;
}
-static bool_t hvm_efer_valid(struct domain *d,
-