On 20.02.2023 12:59, Andrew Cooper wrote: > We have two naming schemes for exceptions - X86_EXC_?? which use the > archtiectural abbreviations, and TRAP_* which is a mix of terminology and > nonstandard abbrevations. Switch to X86_EXC_* uniformly. > > No funcational change, confirmed by diffing the disassembly. Only 7 binary > changes, and they're all __LINE__ being passed into printk(). > > Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com>
Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> > --- a/xen/arch/x86/mm/shadow/multi.c > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm/shadow/multi.c > @@ -2745,9 +2745,9 @@ static int cf_check sh_page_fault( > * stream under Xen's feet. > */ > if ( emul_ctxt.ctxt.event.type == X86_EVENTTYPE_HW_EXCEPTION && > - ((emul_ctxt.ctxt.event.vector == TRAP_page_fault) || > - (((emul_ctxt.ctxt.event.vector == TRAP_gp_fault) || > - (emul_ctxt.ctxt.event.vector == TRAP_stack_error)) && > + ((emul_ctxt.ctxt.event.vector == X86_EXC_PF) || > + (((emul_ctxt.ctxt.event.vector == X86_EXC_GP) || > + (emul_ctxt.ctxt.event.vector == X86_EXC_SS)) && > emul_ctxt.ctxt.event.error_code == 0)) ) > hvm_inject_event(&emul_ctxt.ctxt.event); > else Entirely unrelated to your change, but seeing that this piece of code is being touched: Aren't we too lax here with #PF? Shouldn't we refuse propagation also for e.g. reserved bit faults and insn fetch ones? Maybe even for anything that isn't a supervisor write? Jan
