On 10/30/15 16:40, Radim Krčmář wrote:
> 2015-10-26 17:32+0100, Paolo Bonzini:
>> On 26/10/2015 16:43, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
The code would be cleaner if we had a different approach, but this works
too and is safer for stable. In case you prefer to leave the rewrite for
a future
2015-10-26 17:32+0100, Paolo Bonzini:
> On 26/10/2015 16:43, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>>> The code would be cleaner if we had a different approach, but this works
>>> too and is safer for stable. In case you prefer to leave the rewrite for
>>> a future victim,
>>
>> It's hard to express how much I
2015-10-23 23:43+0200, Laszlo Ersek:
> Commit b10d92a54dac ("KVM: x86: fix RSM into 64-bit protected mode")
> reordered the rsm_load_seg_64() and rsm_enter_protected_mode() calls,
> relative to each other. The argument that said commit made was correct,
> however putting rsm_enter_protected_mode()
On 10/26/15 16:37, Radim Krčmář wrote:
> 2015-10-23 23:43+0200, Laszlo Ersek:
>> Commit b10d92a54dac ("KVM: x86: fix RSM into 64-bit protected mode")
>> reordered the rsm_load_seg_64() and rsm_enter_protected_mode() calls,
>> relative to each other. The argument that said commit made was correct,
On 26/10/2015 16:43, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> > The code would be cleaner if we had a different approach, but this works
> > too and is safer for stable. In case you prefer to leave the rewrite for
> > a future victim,
>
> It's hard to express how much I prefer that.
Radim, if you want to have a
Commit b10d92a54dac ("KVM: x86: fix RSM into 64-bit protected mode")
reordered the rsm_load_seg_64() and rsm_enter_protected_mode() calls,
relative to each other. The argument that said commit made was correct,
however putting rsm_enter_protected_mode() first whole-sale violated the
following
In order to get into 64-bit protected mode, CS.L must be 0. This
is always the case when executing RSM, so it is enough to load the
segments after CR0 and CR4.
Fixes: 660a5d517aaab9187f93854425c4c63f4a09195c
Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini
---