WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

[Xen-devel] VMX check_for_null_selector()

To: <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Xen-devel] VMX check_for_null_selector()
From: "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 09:46:55 +0100
Delivery-date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 00:45:04 -0800
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
What is the hidden background for using this function when the guest
is in protected mode? When the selector used is a null one (and not
in 64-bit mode), the instruction should not cause an
EXIT_REASON_IO_INSTRUCTION exit at all, but rather should cause
a GP fault in the guest. In 64-bit mode, a null selector isn't invalid,
and hence doesn't need checking for.
What I'm trying to determine is whether the function must be fixed
(to deal with (a) non-zero CS base addresses and (b) the fact that
on INS there shouldn't be checking for segment overrides, but ES
should be used in all cases) or can be removed.

Thanks, Jan

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>