>>> On 24.02.16 at 11:37, <kevin.t...@intel.com> wrote:
> Sorry I didn't quite get the question here. Could anyone of you
> write down a standalone description of the problem then I can
> forward internally to confirm since my translation might be
> inaccurate here?
What we'd like to get formally stated is whether FIP is guaranteed
to be treated as 48-bit pointer, which upon loading/storing by
64-bit {F,}X{XSAVE,RSTOR} will get truncated/canonicalized. With
FDP being a full 64-bit pointer on Intel CPUs (but only a 48 bit one
on AMD ones), and both your and their manuals implicitly describing
both as full 64-bit fields, FIP potentially also being a full 64-bit field
on past, present, or future CPUs would render David's intended
code improvement unsafe.
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
