On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 11:40 AM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 07/26/2011 07:17 PM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 7:37 PM, j.fitz.inge@xxxxxxxxx <jeremy@xxxxxxxx>
>>> The correct fix is to just look at the cpl in cs and ignore the rest of the
>> No. All three of these code paths are trap handlers that are trying
>> to distinguish between 64-bit and 32-bit segments. The CPL is 3 in
>> either case.
> Oh, hm.
>> It looks like the reason I didn't find the code that it references
>> TRAP_syscall not VCGF_in_syscall. Yay for grep-unfriendly code.
>> Barring a better idea, I'll implement a new paravirt op.
> Ugh. I'd really like to avoid that.
My current patch adds a field to pv_info. I agree it's ugly.
How terrible would it be to stop using VCGF_in_syscall so we can keep
__USER_CS? Is there a real performance advantage to VCGF_in_syscall?
Xen-devel mailing list