Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 5/8] x86emul: support MOVDIR{I, 64B} insns

2019-09-04 Thread Jan Beulich
On 04.09.2019 12:19, Andrew Cooper wrote: > On 03/09/2019 13:25, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 03.09.2019 12:28, Andrew Cooper wrote: >>> On 03/09/2019 10:39, Jan Beulich wrote: Note that SDM revision 070 doesn't specify exception behavior for ModRM.mod != 0b11; assuming #UD here. Si

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 5/8] x86emul: support MOVDIR{I, 64B} insns

2019-09-04 Thread Andrew Cooper
On 03/09/2019 13:25, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 03.09.2019 12:28, Andrew Cooper wrote: >> On 03/09/2019 10:39, Jan Beulich wrote: >>> Note that SDM revision 070 doesn't specify exception behavior for >>> ModRM.mod != 0b11; assuming #UD here. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich >> What are we going to

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 5/8] x86emul: support MOVDIR{I, 64B} insns

2019-09-03 Thread Jan Beulich
On 03.09.2019 12:28, Andrew Cooper wrote: > On 03/09/2019 10:39, Jan Beulich wrote: >> Note that SDM revision 070 doesn't specify exception behavior for >> ModRM.mod != 0b11; assuming #UD here. >> >> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich > > What are we going to do about the ->write() hook atomicity?  I'm h

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 5/8] x86emul: support MOVDIR{I, 64B} insns

2019-09-03 Thread Andrew Cooper
On 03/09/2019 10:39, Jan Beulich wrote: > Note that SDM revision 070 doesn't specify exception behavior for > ModRM.mod != 0b11; assuming #UD here. > > Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich What are we going to do about the ->write() hook atomicity?  I'm happy to put it on the TODO list, but we can't simply

[Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 5/8] x86emul: support MOVDIR{I,64B} insns

2019-09-03 Thread Jan Beulich
Note that SDM revision 070 doesn't specify exception behavior for ModRM.mod != 0b11; assuming #UD here. Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich --- v3: Update description. --- a/tools/tests/x86_emulator/test_x86_emulator.c +++ b/tools/tests/x86_emulator/test_x86_emulator.c @@ -2196,6 +2196,36 @@ int main(int