Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86/HVM: adjust hvm_interrupt_blocked()

2023-09-05 Thread Roger Pau Monné
On Mon, Sep 04, 2023 at 03:40:46PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 31.08.2023 12:57, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 12:42:58PM +0200, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > >> On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 09:58:46AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> First of all, hvm_intsrc_mce was not considered her

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86/HVM: adjust hvm_interrupt_blocked()

2023-09-04 Thread Jan Beulich
On 31.08.2023 12:42, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 09:58:46AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: >> First of all, hvm_intsrc_mce was not considered here at all, yet nothing >> blocks #MC (other than an already in-progress #MC, but dealing with this >> is not the purpose of this patch). >>

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86/HVM: adjust hvm_interrupt_blocked()

2023-09-04 Thread Jan Beulich
On 31.08.2023 12:57, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 12:42:58PM +0200, Roger Pau Monné wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 09:58:46AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: >>> First of all, hvm_intsrc_mce was not considered here at all, yet nothing >>> blocks #MC (other than an already in-progre

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86/HVM: adjust hvm_interrupt_blocked()

2023-08-31 Thread Roger Pau Monné
On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 12:42:58PM +0200, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 09:58:46AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: > > First of all, hvm_intsrc_mce was not considered here at all, yet nothing > > blocks #MC (other than an already in-progress #MC, but dealing with this > > is not the pu

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86/HVM: adjust hvm_interrupt_blocked()

2023-08-31 Thread Roger Pau Monné
On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 09:58:46AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: > First of all, hvm_intsrc_mce was not considered here at all, yet nothing > blocks #MC (other than an already in-progress #MC, but dealing with this > is not the purpose of this patch). > > Additionally STI-shadow only blocks maskable i

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86/HVM: adjust hvm_interrupt_blocked()

2018-10-26 Thread Jan Beulich
>>> On 12.10.18 at 18:37, wrote: > Furthermore, I believe even #MC is blocked by the MOVSS shadow, because > the purpose of the shadow is to indicate "my stack is not safe to take > an exception". I've just looked at the precise SDM text again, which I see has changed compared to the prior revisi

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86/HVM: adjust hvm_interrupt_blocked()

2018-10-25 Thread Jan Beulich
>>> On 12.10.18 at 18:37, wrote: > Furthermore, I believe even #MC is blocked by the MOVSS shadow, because > the purpose of the shadow is to indicate "my stack is not safe to take > an exception". Having thought about this some more over lunch, I'm afraid I now think that both variants are equall

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86/HVM: adjust hvm_interrupt_blocked()

2018-10-25 Thread Jan Beulich
>>> On 12.10.18 at 18:37, wrote: > On 12/10/18 16:58, Jan Beulich wrote: >> First of all, hvm_intsrc_mce was not considered here at all, yet nothing >> blocks #MC (other than an already in-progress #MC, but dealing with this >> is not the purpose of this patch). > > I don't believe we've got suff

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86/HVM: adjust hvm_interrupt_blocked()

2018-10-12 Thread Andrew Cooper
On 12/10/18 16:58, Jan Beulich wrote: > First of all, hvm_intsrc_mce was not considered here at all, yet nothing > blocks #MC (other than an already in-progress #MC, but dealing with this > is not the purpose of this patch). I don't believe we've got sufficient infrastructure to fix this reasonabl

[Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86/HVM: adjust hvm_interrupt_blocked()

2018-10-12 Thread Jan Beulich
First of all, hvm_intsrc_mce was not considered here at all, yet nothing blocks #MC (other than an already in-progress #MC, but dealing with this is not the purpose of this patch). Additionally STI-shadow only blocks maskable interrupts, but not NMI. Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich --- a/xen/arch/x8