> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:jbeul...@suse.com] > Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 3:59 PM > > >>> On 07.09.16 at 07:36, <kevin.t...@intel.com> wrote: > >> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:jbeul...@suse.com] > >> Sent: Friday, September 02, 2016 6:22 PM > >> > >> Consistently consult hvm_cpuid(). With that, BNDCFGS gets better > >> handled outside of VMX specific code, just like XSS. Don't needlessly > >> check for MTRR support when the MSR being accessed clearly is not an > >> MTRR one. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> > >> > > > > A nice cleanup. Just one comment: > > > >> @@ -3824,9 +3850,8 @@ int hvm_msr_write_intercept(unsigned int > >> break; > >> > >> case MSR_MTRRcap: > >> - if ( !mtrr ) > >> - goto gp_fault; > >> goto gp_fault; > >> + > > > > what's point of removing above mtrr check? > > Isn't that obvious: No matter what value "mtrr" has, we > "goto gp_fault". >
you are right. Sorry I simply looked at same condition checks for other MTRR registers while didn't think about its actual meaning here. Acked-by: Kevin Tian <kevin.t...@intel.com> Thanks Kevin _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
