On 01.11.2019 19:49, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 01/11/2019 14:29, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 01/11/2019 14:00, Eslam Elnikety wrote:
>>> Thanks for this series, Jan.
>>>
>>> On 30.10.19 11:39, Jan Beulich wrote:
To fulfill the "protected" in its name, don't let the real hardware
values "sh
On 01.11.2019 19:35, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 30/10/2019 12:02, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 30.10.2019 12:43, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>> On 30/10/2019 10:39, Jan Beulich wrote:
To fulfill the "protected" in its name, don't let the real hardware
values "shine through". Report a control registe
On 01.11.2019 15:00, Eslam Elnikety wrote:
> On 30.10.19 11:39, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> @@ -237,6 +239,18 @@ int guest_rdmsr(struct vcpu *v, uint32_t
>> ARRAY_SIZE(msrs->dr_mask))];
>> break;
>>
>> +case MSR_PPIN_CTL:
>> +if ( d->arch.cpui
On 01.11.2019 15:29, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 01/11/2019 14:00, Eslam Elnikety wrote:
>> Thanks for this series, Jan.
>>
>> On 30.10.19 11:39, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> To fulfill the "protected" in its name, don't let the real hardware
>>> values "shine through". Report a control register value expr
On 01/11/2019 14:29, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 01/11/2019 14:00, Eslam Elnikety wrote:
>> Thanks for this series, Jan.
>>
>> On 30.10.19 11:39, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> To fulfill the "protected" in its name, don't let the real hardware
>>> values "shine through". Report a control register value expr
On 30/10/2019 12:02, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 30.10.2019 12:43, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 30/10/2019 10:39, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> To fulfill the "protected" in its name, don't let the real hardware
>>> values "shine through". Report a control register value expressing this.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by:
On 01/11/2019 14:00, Eslam Elnikety wrote:
> Thanks for this series, Jan.
>
> On 30.10.19 11:39, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> To fulfill the "protected" in its name, don't let the real hardware
>> values "shine through". Report a control register value expressing this.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
>>
Thanks for this series, Jan.
On 30.10.19 11:39, Jan Beulich wrote:
To fulfill the "protected" in its name, don't let the real hardware
values "shine through". Report a control register value expressing this.
Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
---
TBD: Do we want to permit Dom0 access?
It would be ni
On 30.10.2019 12:43, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 30/10/2019 10:39, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> To fulfill the "protected" in its name, don't let the real hardware
>> values "shine through". Report a control register value expressing this.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
>> ---
>> TBD: Do we want to permi
On 30/10/2019 10:39, Jan Beulich wrote:
> To fulfill the "protected" in its name, don't let the real hardware
> values "shine through". Report a control register value expressing this.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
> ---
> TBD: Do we want to permit Dom0 access?
I would recommend reordering the t
10 matches
Mail list logo