[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH RFC V8 5/5] xen: Handle resumed instruction based on previous mem_event reply
- To: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx>, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>
- From: Razvan Cojocaru <rcojocaru@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2014 10:30:07 +0300
- Cc: "Dong, Eddie" <eddie.dong@xxxxxxxxx>, "stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx" <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, "tim@xxxxxxx" <tim@xxxxxxx>, "Nakajima, Jun" <jun.nakajima@xxxxxxxxx>, "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "ian.jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <ian.jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx" <ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Comment: DomainKeys? See http://domainkeys.sourceforge.net/
- Delivery-date: Thu, 28 Aug 2014 07:30:03 +0000
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=bitdefender.com; b=JPYlU7tXkIaGrYiombXfEcAz1toChthur84zfVn/aDM4CSypUfW1/Otys3jJ8XZvAyHdYjLQEBHOX8Es1Da2HM+J9Jj3p3OjM3DGYcixKCUK5+C6qBC6tvwSF8Wwc9O3+Ry25XLL3rUe210ZjzDk6ETEH938cfK7P/hfQEjSEyT1e1TPSZsSBjh1wIcVJqMtMhEpxIAAFePwCobExC46ju8eZb026toBvK3uRkR0VmQA9NpOKiRFL+16IVJj2UTIigTXMIck+ck0EUpbPO6qMpIwB9SCveOTlwmIX2b7tvAax6+3lLlfLVVEU8OBj5wCW7d4PWZeKL/0oqsocinnpQ==; h=Received:Received:Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-BitDefender-Scanner:X-BitDefender-Spam:X-BitDefender-SpamStamp:X-BitDefender-CF-Stamp;
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xen.org>
On 08/28/2014 12:06 AM, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:JBeulich@xxxxxxxx]
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 8:52 AM
>>
>>>>> On 27.08.14 at 16:01, <rcojocaru@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> +static bool_t vmx_exited_by_nested_pagefault(void)
>>> +{
>>> + unsigned long exit_qualification;
>>> +
>>> + __vmread(EXIT_QUALIFICATION, &exit_qualification);
>>> +
>>> + if ( (exit_qualification & EPT_GLA_FAULT) == 0 )
>>
>> It just occurred to me - Is this a valid check for any but
>> EXIT_REASON_EPT_VIOLATION? I didn't think the bits here carry
>> the same meaning regardless of exit kind...
>>
>
> You're right. GLA bit definition is only for EPT violation.
I'll check the exit reason as well.
Thanks,
Razvan Cojocaru
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
