On Thu, Jun 17, 2010, Gleb Natapov wrote about "Re: [PATCH 16/24] Implement
VMLAUNCH and VMRESUME":
> > +static int handle_launch_or_resume(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, bool launch)
> > +{
> > + if (!nested_vmx_check_permission(vcpu))
>...
> Should also check MOV SS blocking. Why Intel decided that vm entry
> should fail in this case? How knows, but spec says so.
Thanks. Added the check:
if (vmcs_read32(GUEST_INTERRUPTIBILITY_INFO) & GUEST_INTR_STATE_MOV_SS){
nested_vmx_failValid(vcpu,
VMXERR_ENTRY_EVENTS_BLOCKED_BY_MOV_SS);
skip_emulated_instruction(vcpu);
return 1;
}
Like you, I don't understand why this test is at all necessary...
--
Nadav Har'El | Thursday, Sep 16 2010, 8 Tishri 5771
[email protected] |-----------------------------------------
Phone +972-523-790466, ICQ 13349191 |Help Microsoft stamp out piracy. Give
http://nadav.harel.org.il |Linux to a friend today!
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
