xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86/HVM: re-order operations in hvm_ud_intercept()
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 15:06:33 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <575977E9.9050307@citrix.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <57597DAE02000078000F3735@prv-mh.provo.novell.com>

On 09/06/16 13:31, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 09.06.16 at 13:34, <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> wrote:
>> On 08/06/16 14:43, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> Don't fetch CS explicitly, leverage the fact that hvm_emulate_prepare()
>>> already does (and that hvm_virtual_to_linear_addr() doesn't alter it).
>>> At once increase the length passed to hvm_virtual_to_linear_addr() by
>>> one: There definitely needs to be at least one more opcode byte, and we
>>> can avoid missing a wraparound case this way.
>>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
>> I looked into this when you suggested it, but it latches the wrong eip
>> in the emulation state, and you will end up re-emulating the ud2a
>> instruction, rather than the following instruction.
> Where is there any latching of eip? All hvm_emulate_prepare() does
> is storing the regs pointer.

Oh - so it does.  I clearly looked over it too quickly.

What wraparound issue are you referring to?  Adding 1 will cause
incorrect behaviour when the emulation prefix ends at the segment limit.


Xen-devel mailing list

  reply	other threads:[~2016-06-09 14:06 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-06-08 13:35 [PATCH] x86/HVM: mis adjustments Jan Beulich
2016-06-08 13:42 ` [PATCH 1/2] x86/HVM: constify hvm_virtual_to_linear_addr()'s segment register parameter Jan Beulich
2016-06-09 11:25   ` Andrew Cooper
2016-06-08 13:43 ` [PATCH 2/2] x86/HVM: re-order operations in hvm_ud_intercept() Jan Beulich
2016-06-09 11:34   ` Andrew Cooper
2016-06-09 12:31     ` Jan Beulich
2016-06-09 14:06       ` Andrew Cooper [this message]
2016-06-09 14:13         ` Jan Beulich
2016-06-09 14:27           ` Andrew Cooper
2016-06-09 15:05             ` Jan Beulich
2016-06-17  8:19               ` Ping: " Jan Beulich
2016-06-17  9:37               ` Andrew Cooper
2016-06-17 10:01                 ` Jan Beulich

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=575977E9.9050307@citrix.com \
    --to=andrew.cooper3@citrix.com \
    --cc=JBeulich@suse.com \
    --cc=xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86/HVM: re-order operations in hvm_ud_intercept()' \


* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).