On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Andrew Cooper
wrote:
> On 17/10/16 17:28, Kyle Huey wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 5:34 AM, Andrew Cooper
>> wrote:
>>> On 14/10/16 20:36, Kyle Huey wrote:
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Andrew Cooper
wrote:
> On a slightly separate note, as y
On 17/10/16 17:28, Kyle Huey wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 5:34 AM, Andrew Cooper
> wrote:
>> On 14/10/16 20:36, Kyle Huey wrote:
>>> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Andrew Cooper
>>> wrote:
On a slightly separate note, as you have just been a successful
guinea-pig for XTF, how did
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 5:34 AM, Andrew Cooper
wrote:
> On 14/10/16 20:36, Kyle Huey wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Andrew Cooper
>> wrote:
>>> On a slightly separate note, as you have just been a successful
>>> guinea-pig for XTF, how did you find it? It is a very new (still
>>> so
On 14/10/16 20:36, Kyle Huey wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Andrew Cooper
> wrote:
>> On a slightly separate note, as you have just been a successful
>> guinea-pig for XTF, how did you find it? It is a very new (still
>> somewhat in development) system but the project is looking to tr
On 14/10/16 20:28, Kyle Huey wrote:
>> :) I am now curious as to which bit I missed.
> I made these changes.
>
> - Kyle
>
> ---
> tests/cpuid-faulting/main.c | 9 ++---
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tests/cpuid-faulting/main.c b/tests/cpuid-faulting/main.c
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Andrew Cooper
wrote:
> On a slightly separate note, as you have just been a successful
> guinea-pig for XTF, how did you find it? It is a very new (still
> somewhat in development) system but the project is looking to try and
> improve regression testing in this
> :) I am now curious as to which bit I missed.
I made these changes.
- Kyle
---
tests/cpuid-faulting/main.c | 9 ++---
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tests/cpuid-faulting/main.c b/tests/cpuid-faulting/main.c
index 3e782a2..221567d 100644
--- a/tests/cpuid-fau
On 14/10/16 18:05, Kyle Huey wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 7:46 AM, Andrew Cooper
> wrote:
>> On 14/10/16 13:04, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 13.10.16 at 23:09, wrote:
--- a/xen/arch/x86/traps.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/traps.c
@@ -1315,16 +1315,20 @@ static int emulate_forced_invalid
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 7:46 AM, Andrew Cooper
wrote:
> On 14/10/16 13:04, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 13.10.16 at 23:09, wrote:
>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/traps.c
>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/traps.c
>>> @@ -1315,16 +1315,20 @@ static int emulate_forced_invalid_op(struct
>>> cpu_user_regs *regs)
>>>
On 14/10/16 13:04, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 13.10.16 at 23:09, wrote:
>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/traps.c
>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/traps.c
>> @@ -1315,16 +1315,20 @@ static int emulate_forced_invalid_op(struct
>> cpu_user_regs *regs)
>> /* We only emulate CPUID. */
>> if ( ( rc = copy_from_use
>>> On 13.10.16 at 23:09, wrote:
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/traps.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/traps.c
> @@ -1315,16 +1315,20 @@ static int emulate_forced_invalid_op(struct
> cpu_user_regs *regs)
> /* We only emulate CPUID. */
> if ( ( rc = copy_from_user(instr, (char *)eip, sizeof(instr))) != 0 )
On HVM guests, the cpuid triggers a vm exit, so we can check the emulated
faulting state in vmx_do_cpuid and inject a GP(0) if CPL > 0. Notably no
hardware support for faulting on cpuid is necessary to emulate support with an
HVM guest.
On PV guests, hardware support is required so that userspace
12 matches
Mail list logo
