From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:57280)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1XJcj1-00069i-Ks
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 02:17:01 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1XJciv-0004pT-GG
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 02:16:55 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:14800)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1XJciv-0004pP-8Z
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 02:16:49 -0400
Message-ID: <53F2EBC7.3010105@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 08:16:39 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAG5rQryFDdrYZKPWYm8k_5EPGOP9RgvUqamSkjWiO3UikieeAw@mail.gmail.com>
	<5FAD0382C1B6944A908C8A46AB12DA9D03E1EB@LLE2K10-MBX02.mitll.ad.local>
	<53EE7214.9000603@redhat.com>
	<9BA52E25-E3BF-42FF-B080-86B7926D8B80@ll.mit.edu>
	<53F03BCC.705@redhat.com> <53F239D1.6070001@twiddle.net>
	<98E51B30-6FC2-42D3-A5D2-6504B0B6472D@ll.mit.edu>
	<D017DEE0.758%Patrick.Hulin@ll.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <D017DEE0.758%Patrick.Hulin@ll.mit.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] QEMU, self-modifying code,
 and Windows 7 64-bit (no KVM)
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: "Hulin, Patrick - 0559 - MITLL" <Patrick.Hulin@ll.mit.edu>, Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>
Cc: "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>

Il 18/08/2014 22:50, Hulin, Patrick - 0559 - MITLL ha scritto:
>> >Correct. Doesn=B9t work. Haven=B9t fully diagnosed why, but it doesn=B9=
t seem
>> >to ever hit the current_tb_modified passage if you invalidate beforeh=
and.
> Yeah - mem_io_pc doesn=B9t get updated until we=B9re inside io_write, s=
o
> tb_invalidate_phys_page_range thinks we=B9re inside a different TB. As =
a
> result, it=B9s =B3is this TB modified=B2 check still returns false.

We can set that (and probably mem_io_vaddr) before the for loop, too.

Paolo