On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 10:25:15 -0500
Anthony Liguori [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd prefer you not do an emulate_instruction loop at all. Just emulate
one instruction on vmentry failure and let VT tell you what instructions
you need to emulate.
It's only four instructions so I don't think
Anthony Liguori wrote:
I'd prefer you not do an emulate_instruction loop at all. Just
emulate one instruction on vmentry failure and let VT tell you what
instructions you need to emulate.
It's only four instructions so I don't think the performance is going
to matter. Take a look at
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 16:06:43 +0300
Avi Kivity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
handle_vmentry_failure: invalid guest state
handle_vmentry_failure: start emulation
handle_vmentry_failure: emulation failed
What instruction failed, exactly?
I added the code do dump the instruction and
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 14:18:16 +0200
Guillaume Thouvenin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I added the code do dump the instruction and it seems that it's the
emulation of 0xe6 (== out imm8, al) that failed. I made modifications
to emulate it (see below) and now I have another problem in kvm
userspace
Guillaume Thouvenin wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 16:06:43 +0300
Avi Kivity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
handle_vmentry_failure: invalid guest state
handle_vmentry_failure: start emulation
handle_vmentry_failure: emulation failed
What instruction failed, exactly?
I
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 08:23:07 -0500
Anthony Liguori [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This doesn't seem right. You should have been able to break out of the
emulator long before encountering an out instruction. The next
instruction you encounter should be a mov instruction. Are you sure
you're
Guillaume Thouvenin wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 08:23:07 -0500
Anthony Liguori [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This doesn't seem right. You should have been able to break out of the
emulator long before encountering an out instruction. The next
instruction you encounter should be a mov
On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 11:05:06 -0500
Anthony Liguori [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps a viable way to fix this upstream would be to catch the vmentry
failure, look to see if SS.CPL != CS.CPL, and if so, invoke
x86_emulate() in a loop until SS.CPL == CS.CPL.
There are very few instructions
Guillaume Thouvenin wrote:
On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 11:05:06 -0500
Anthony Liguori [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps a viable way to fix this upstream would be to catch the vmentry
failure, look to see if SS.CPL != CS.CPL, and if so, invoke
x86_emulate() in a loop until SS.CPL == CS.CPL.
On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 11:05:06 -0500
Anthony Liguori [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps a viable way to fix this upstream would be to catch the vmentry
failure, look to see if SS.CPL != CS.CPL, and if so, invoke
x86_emulate() in a loop until SS.CPL == CS.CPL.
I tried this solution some time ago
Guillaume Thouvenin wrote:
On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 11:05:06 -0500
Anthony Liguori [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps a viable way to fix this upstream would be to catch the vmentry
failure, look to see if SS.CPL != CS.CPL, and if so, invoke
x86_emulate() in a loop until SS.CPL == CS.CPL.
On Tue, 08 Apr 2008 07:14:13 -0500
Anthony Liguori [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Guillaume Thouvenin wrote:
On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 11:05:06 -0500
Anthony Liguori [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps a viable way to fix this upstream would be to catch the vmentry
failure, look to see if
Guillaume Thouvenin wrote:
x86 emulate is missing support for jmp far which is used to switch into
protected mode. It just needs to be added.
Ok I see. I understand now why you said in a previous email that KVM
needs to have a proper load_seg() function like the Xen's
Alexander Graf wrote:
Hi,
this is an improved version of the patch I sent several weeks ago to
this list. Functionally nothing changed; it still hacks into gfxboot and
patches it to work on Intel CPUs on the fly. The big difference is that
this version is cleaned up and should work with
On Apr 7, 2008, at 6:05 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Alexander Graf wrote:
Hi,
this is an improved version of the patch I sent several weeks ago to
this list. Functionally nothing changed; it still hacks into
gfxboot and
patches it to work on Intel CPUs on the fly. The big difference is
Alexander Graf wrote:
On Apr 7, 2008, at 6:05 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Alexander Graf wrote:
Hi,
this is an improved version of the patch I sent several weeks ago to
this list. Functionally nothing changed; it still hacks into gfxboot
and
patches it to work on Intel CPUs on the fly. The
On Apr 7, 2008, at 6:51 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Alexander Graf wrote:
On Apr 7, 2008, at 6:05 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Alexander Graf wrote:
Hi,
this is an improved version of the patch I sent several weeks ago
to
this list. Functionally nothing changed; it still hacks into
Alexander Graf wrote:
On Apr 7, 2008, at 6:51 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Alexander Graf wrote:
On Apr 7, 2008, at 6:05 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Alexander Graf wrote:
Hi,
this is an improved version of the patch I sent several weeks ago to
this list. Functionally nothing changed; it
Anthony Liguori wrote:
Yes, but it won't compile as KVM does not have a proper load_seg()
function like the Xen's x86_emulate.
Izik added something for task switching (see load_segment_descriptor).
--
Any sufficiently difficult bug is indistinguishable from a feature.
19 matches
Mail list logo
