[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4C4F2643.8080507@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 21:32:35 +0300
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To: Joerg Roedel <joerg.roedel@....com>
CC: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] KVM: SVM: Emulate next_rip svm feature
On 07/27/2010 07:14 PM, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> This patch implements the emulations of the svm next_rip
> feature in the nested svm implementation in kvm.
>
> Signed-off-by: Joerg Roedel<joerg.roedel@....com>
> ---
> arch/x86/kvm/svm.c | 8 +++++++-
> 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/svm.c b/arch/x86/kvm/svm.c
> index 7d10f2c..b44c9cc 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/svm.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/svm.c
> @@ -1919,6 +1919,7 @@ static int nested_svm_vmexit(struct vcpu_svm *svm)
> nested_vmcb->control.exit_info_2 = vmcb->control.exit_info_2;
> nested_vmcb->control.exit_int_info = vmcb->control.exit_int_info;
> nested_vmcb->control.exit_int_info_err = vmcb->control.exit_int_info_err;
> + nested_vmcb->control.next_rip = vmcb->control.next_rip;
>
Can it be really this simple? Suppose we emulate a nested guest
instruction just before vmexit, doesn't that invalidate
vmcb->control.next_rip? Can that happen?
--
I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this
signature is too narrow to contain.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists