[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <5AE9D49B02000078001C0322@prv1-mh.provo.novell.com>
Date: Wed, 02 May 2018 09:09:15 -0600
From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@...e.com>
To: "Boris Ostrovsky" <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>
Cc: "xen-devel" <xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>,
"Juergen Gross" <jgross@...e.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/4] xen/PVH: Use proper CS selector in
long mode
>>> On 02.05.18 at 17:08, <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com> wrote:
> On 05/02/2018 11:00 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 02.05.18 at 16:57, <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com> wrote:
>>> On 05/02/2018 04:05 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>>> On 30.04.18 at 18:23, <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com> wrote:
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...e.com>
>>>>
>>>> But to understand why things have been working nevertheless it would
>>>> have been nice if the commit message wasn't empty, but instead said
>>>> something like "The two happen to be identical on 64-bit."
>>>
>>> Why do you think they are identical? __KERNEL_CS points to entry#12
>>> (which we don't specify in PVH GDT) while __BOOT_CS is the second entry
>>> (which we do create).
>> That's 32-bit's __KERNEL_CS. If the two weren't identical, the ljmp
>> you adjust would never have worked afaict.
>
>
> Oh, right. My theory was that we were picking up something from the
> stack (which is where 12th entry would be pointing) and the L bit, which
> I think is the only one we'd care about, happened to always be set there.
I don't think the L bit is the only one we care about, as I don't think you
can load a non-code selector into CS (even if none of the attributes are
later used for anything).
Jan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists