On 12/16/16 20:59 +0000, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 16/12/16 13:43, Haozhong Zhang wrote:
Fault #GP(0) is expected in this test.
Signed-off-by: Haozhong Zhang <haozhong.zh...@intel.com>
---
tests/vvmx/vmxon.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 29 insertions(+)
diff --git a/tests/vvmx/vmxon.c b/tests/vvmx/vmxon.c
index 0664a48..ec7ee7e 100644
--- a/tests/vvmx/vmxon.c
+++ b/tests/vvmx/vmxon.c
@@ -3,6 +3,7 @@
#include "util.h"
static uint8_t vmxon_region[PAGE_SIZE] __aligned(PAGE_SIZE);
+static uint8_t vmxon_region_2nd[PAGE_SIZE] __aligned(PAGE_SIZE);
You introduce vmxon_region_2nd here, but reference it in the previous patch.
I must have made mistakes when separating patch 13 - 16.
However, I am not sure of its purpose. Why cant you reuse the previous
host state area?
Intel SDM says SW should not access or modify the VXMON rgion of a
logical processor between vmxon and vmxoff. Though I have tested on
real hardware whether reusing VMXON region would cause any trouble, I
still want to exclude that possibility/noise from this test.
/**
* vmxon with CR4.VMXE cleared
@@ -165,6 +166,31 @@ static bool test_vmxon_in_root_cpl0_novmcs(void)
VMXERR_VMFAIL_INVALID, 0, 0);
}
+static unsigned long vmxon_in_root_user(void)
+{
+ exinfo_t fault;
+ unsigned long ret = vmxon((uint64_t)vmxon_region_2nd, &fault);
+
+ return (ret << 32) | fault;
+}
I have a pending patch for exec_user_param() (originally written for a
test which I subsequently reimplemented differently).
I have just pushed it for you to use. You can have one common
user_vmxon() and pass a variable host region to it, rather than having
an almost-entirely duplicate function.
Thank you! I can use the dedicated bits in exinfo_t as you suggested
in previous patch.
Haozhong
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
