From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Nadav Har'El" <nyh@math.technion.ac.il>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/24] Implement VMLAUNCH and VMRESUME
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 18:06:39 +0200
Message-ID: <20100916160639.GC6303@fermat.math.technion.ac.il>
References: <1276431753-nyh@il.ibm.com> <201006131230.o5DCUk2i013070@rice.haifa.ibm.com> <20100617105949.GO523@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: avi@redhat.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org
To: Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mailgw12.technion.ac.il ([132.68.225.12]:40758 "EHLO
	mailgw12.technion.ac.il" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1752748Ab0IPQ2S (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 16 Sep 2010 12:28:18 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20100617105949.GO523@redhat.com>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

On Thu, Jun 17, 2010, Gleb Natapov wrote about "Re: [PATCH 16/24] Implement VMLAUNCH and VMRESUME":
> > +static int handle_launch_or_resume(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, bool launch)
> > +{
> > +	if (!nested_vmx_check_permission(vcpu))
>...
> Should also check MOV SS blocking. Why Intel decided that vm entry
> should fail in this case? How knows, but spec says so.

Thanks. Added the check:

if (vmcs_read32(GUEST_INTERRUPTIBILITY_INFO) & GUEST_INTR_STATE_MOV_SS){
	nested_vmx_failValid(vcpu,
		VMXERR_ENTRY_EVENTS_BLOCKED_BY_MOV_SS);
	skip_emulated_instruction(vcpu);
	return 1;
}

Like you, I don't understand why this test is at all necessary...

-- 
Nadav Har'El                        |     Thursday, Sep 16 2010, 8 Tishri 5771
nyh@math.technion.ac.il             |-----------------------------------------
Phone +972-523-790466, ICQ 13349191 |Help Microsoft stamp out piracy. Give
http://nadav.harel.org.il           |Linux to a friend today!