>>> On 06.07.15 at 21:56, <ravi.sah...@intel.com> wrote: > From: Andrew Cooper [mailto:andrew.coop...@citrix.com] > Sent: Friday, July 03, 2015 9:40 AM >> On 01/07/15 19:09, Ed White wrote: >> @@ -1830,6 +1831,20 @@ static void vmx_vcpu_update_vmfunc_ve(struct vcpu *v) >> vmx_vmcs_exit(v); >> } >> >> +static int vmx_vcpu_emulate_vmfunc(struct cpu_user_regs *regs) { >> + int rc = X86EMUL_EXCEPTION; >> + struct vcpu *v = current; >> + >> + if ( !cpu_has_vmx_vmfunc && altp2m_active(v->domain) && >> + regs->eax == 0 && >> + p2m_switch_vcpu_altp2m_by_id(v, (uint16_t)regs->ecx) ) >> + { >> + rc = X86EMUL_OKAY; >> + } > > You need a #UD injection at this point. > > Ravi> I will keep this function unchanged i.e. returns X86EMUL_EXCEPTION on > error, which will cause the initiating hvmemul_vmfunc to stage a #UD (this > staging was in fact missing, and is now fixed - thanks). > Ravi> The #UD is actually injected by the top level routine > vmx_vmexit_ud_intercept.
May I please ask you to adjust your reply style to one similar to what everyone else uses? The Ravi> prefixes aren't indicating a reply at a first, cursory look, especially since they only precede paragraph (or sentence?) starts, i.e. aren't replicated on each line... Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
