>>> On 26.06.15 at 10:10, wrote:
> On 26/06/2015 07:22, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 25.06.15 at 18:22, wrote:
>>> After recent consideration, I am still not sure if we want to support
>>> SMAP in 32bit PV guests or not. The trapping of stac/clac would be a
>>> high overhead, although the guest c
On 26/06/2015 07:22, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 25.06.15 at 18:22, wrote:
>> On 25/06/15 15:41, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 24.06.15 at 18:31, wrote:
The major change here is that v->arch.pv_vcpu.ctrlreg[4] now contains only
CR4
bits which Xen wishes to shadow, rather than contai
>>> On 25.06.15 at 18:22, wrote:
> On 25/06/15 15:41, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 24.06.15 at 18:31, wrote:
>>> The major change here is that v->arch.pv_vcpu.ctrlreg[4] now contains only
>>> CR4
>>> bits which Xen wishes to shadow, rather than containing a mix of host and
>>> guest bits. This i
On 25/06/15 15:41, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 24.06.15 at 18:31, wrote:
>> PV CR4 settings are now based on mmu_cr4_features, rather than the current
>> contents of CR4. This causes dom0 to be consistent with domUs, despite
>> being
>> constructed in a region with CR4.SMAP purposefully disabled.
>>> On 24.06.15 at 18:31, wrote:
> PV CR4 settings are now based on mmu_cr4_features, rather than the current
> contents of CR4. This causes dom0 to be consistent with domUs, despite
> being
> constructed in a region with CR4.SMAP purposefully disabled.
That'll be fine as long as we're keeping
