On 25/03/2020 11:55, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 25.03.2020 11:00, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 24/03/2020 16:29, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c
>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c
>>> @@ -5975,6 +5975,60 @@ x86_emulate(
>>> goto done;
>>>
On 25.03.2020 11:00, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 24/03/2020 16:29, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c
>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c
>> @@ -5975,6 +5975,60 @@ x86_emulate(
>> goto done;
>> break;
>>
>> +case X86EMUL_OPC(0x0f
On 25/03/2020 10:19, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 25.03.2020 11:00, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 24/03/2020 16:29, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c
>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c
>>> @@ -5975,6 +5975,60 @@ x86_emulate(
>>> goto done;
>>>
On 25.03.2020 11:00, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 24/03/2020 16:29, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c
>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c
>> @@ -5975,6 +5975,60 @@ x86_emulate(
>> goto done;
>> break;
>>
>> +case X86EMUL_OPC(0x0f
On 24/03/2020 16:29, Jan Beulich wrote:
> This is to augment SYSCALL, which has been supported for quite some
> time.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
I've compared this to the in-progress version I have in my XSA-204
follow-on series. I'm afraid the behaviour has far more vendor specific
quirks t