>>> On 02.11.18 at 14:08, <wei.l...@citrix.com> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 09:03:18AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: >> >>> On 19.10.18 at 16:28, <wei.l...@citrix.com> wrote: >> > @@ -548,10 +550,14 @@ ENTRY(ret_from_intr) >> > GET_CURRENT(bx) >> > testb $3, UREGS_cs(%rsp) >> > jz restore_all_xen >> > +#ifdef CONFIG_PV >> > movq VCPU_domain(%rbx), %rax >> > cmpb $0, DOMAIN_is_32bit_pv(%rax) >> > je test_all_events >> > jmp compat_test_all_events >> > +#else >> > + BUG >> > +#endif >> >> Hmm, not sure here (and elsewhere): Another option is to >> streamline execution by replacing the conditional branch with an >> unconditional one in the !PV case. Andrew, do you have any >> thoughts either way? > > My original thought was to catch potential issues in Xen code which > messes up with the permission level. Using unconditional jump is fine > by me, too. But in that case I will seek to at least add an assertion > for debug build.
Assertion additions are definitely fine with me. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
