>>> On 26.06.18 at 14:49, wrote:
> So assuming that the HVMOPs are properly handled atomically with respect
> to their corresponding VCPU (which I now believe to be the case), the
> only possible issue that remains (that I can think of) is the case where
> EPTP_INDEX has been saved in a previous r
On 06/26/2018 03:06 PM, Razvan Cojocaru wrote:
> On 06/26/2018 02:56 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 26.06.18 at 12:55, wrote:
>>> On 06/26/2018 01:26 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 25.06.18 at 16:10, wrote:
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/mm/altp2m.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm/altp2m.c
> @@ -58
On 06/26/2018 02:56 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 26.06.18 at 12:55, wrote:
>> On 06/26/2018 01:26 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 25.06.18 at 16:10, wrote:
--- a/xen/arch/x86/mm/altp2m.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm/altp2m.c
@@ -58,8 +58,8 @@ altp2m_vcpu_destroy(struct vcpu *v)
>>> On 26.06.18 at 12:55, wrote:
> On 06/26/2018 01:26 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 25.06.18 at 16:10, wrote:
>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/mm/altp2m.c
>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm/altp2m.c
>>> @@ -58,8 +58,8 @@ altp2m_vcpu_destroy(struct vcpu *v)
>>>
>>> altp2m_vcpu_reset(v);
>>>
>>> -altp
On 06/26/2018 01:26 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 25.06.18 at 16:10, wrote:
>> When SECONDARY_EXEC_ENABLE_VIRT_EXCEPTIONS is set,
>> vmx_vcpu_update_eptp() __vmwrites() EPTP_INDEX in
>> altp2m_vcpu_destroy(). This means that when disabling altp2m on a
>> domain after xc_altp2m_set_vcpu_enable_not
>>> On 25.06.18 at 16:10, wrote:
> When SECONDARY_EXEC_ENABLE_VIRT_EXCEPTIONS is set,
> vmx_vcpu_update_eptp() __vmwrites() EPTP_INDEX in
> altp2m_vcpu_destroy(). This means that when disabling altp2m on a
> domain after xc_altp2m_set_vcpu_enable_notify() has been
> successfully called, EPTP_INDEX
When SECONDARY_EXEC_ENABLE_VIRT_EXCEPTIONS is set,
vmx_vcpu_update_eptp() __vmwrites() EPTP_INDEX in
altp2m_vcpu_destroy(). This means that when disabling altp2m on a
domain after xc_altp2m_set_vcpu_enable_notify() has been
successfully called, EPTP_INDEX ends up being stored as
INVALID_ALTP2M. Thi
