On 02/21/2011 12:07 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
Currently vm86 task is initialized on each real mode entry and vcpu
reset. Initialization is done by zeroing TSS and updating relevant
fields. But since all vcpus are using the same TSS there is a race where
one vcpu may use TSS while other vcpu is
On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 05:43:07PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 02/21/2011 12:07 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
Currently vm86 task is initialized on each real mode entry and vcpu
reset. Initialization is done by zeroing TSS and updating relevant
fields. But since all vcpus are using the same TSS
On 02/27/2011 05:52 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
According to my reading of the code, if KVM_SET_TSS_ADDR is not
invoked, the guest would fail both before and after the patch, yes?
Hmmm. Actually no. Before the patch guest that doesn't use KVM_SET_TSS_ADDR
will use the top of slot zero. Should
On 02/27/2011 05:58 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
The problem with using top of slot
zero is that this memory is available for guest use and we do not even
put it into e820 map as far as I see. Also there are patches floating
around that re-arrange memslots or even put them in a tree. They will
break
On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 05:58:54PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 02/27/2011 05:52 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
According to my reading of the code, if KVM_SET_TSS_ADDR is not
invoked, the guest would fail both before and after the patch, yes?
Hmmm. Actually no. Before the patch guest that
On 02/27/2011 06:12 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 05:58:54PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 02/27/2011 05:52 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
According to my reading of the code, if KVM_SET_TSS_ADDR is not
invoked, the guest would fail both before and after the patch, yes?
On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 06:04:16PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 02/27/2011 05:58 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
The problem with using top of slot
zero is that this memory is available for guest use and we do not even
put it into e820 map as far as I see. Also there are patches floating
around that
On 02/27/2011 06:27 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
Or we can keep the old behaviour. If KVM_SET_TSS_ADDR hasn't been
called by the time of the first entry into real mode (the first
KVM_CREATE_VCPU?), use the top of the first slot.
Do we require that KVM_SET_TSS_ADDR is called before first
On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 06:31:13PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 02/27/2011 06:27 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
Or we can keep the old behaviour. If KVM_SET_TSS_ADDR hasn't been
called by the time of the first entry into real mode (the first
KVM_CREATE_VCPU?), use the top of the first slot.
