2017-07-24 22:20 GMT+08:00 Paolo Bonzini :
> There are three issues in nested_vmx_check_exception:
>
> 1) it is not taking PFEC_MATCH/PFEC_MASK into account, as reported
> by Wanpeng Li;
>
> 2) it should rebuild the interruption info and exit qualification fields
> from
2017-07-24 22:20 GMT+08:00 Paolo Bonzini :
> There are three issues in nested_vmx_check_exception:
>
> 1) it is not taking PFEC_MATCH/PFEC_MASK into account, as reported
> by Wanpeng Li;
>
> 2) it should rebuild the interruption info and exit qualification fields
> from scratch, as reported by Jim
On 26/07/2017 16:55, Jim Mattson wrote:
> Hmmm. That field isn't writable on all microarchitectures.
You're right... I'll see if there's a simple workaround, or it requires
to rework reflection of EXCEPTION_NMI vmexits. The latter would fix
PFEC_MASK/MATCH, too...
Paolo
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017
On 26/07/2017 16:55, Jim Mattson wrote:
> Hmmm. That field isn't writable on all microarchitectures.
You're right... I'll see if there's a simple workaround, or it requires
to rework reflection of EXCEPTION_NMI vmexits. The latter would fix
PFEC_MASK/MATCH, too...
Paolo
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017
On 25/07/2017 23:08, Jim Mattson wrote:
>
> +
> + if (vcpu->arch.exception.has_error_code) {
> + vmcs_write32(VM_EXIT_INTR_ERROR_CODE,
> vcpu->arch.exception.error_code);
>
>
> Should this be vmcs12->vm_exit_intr_error_code
> =
On 25/07/2017 23:08, Jim Mattson wrote:
>
> +
> + if (vcpu->arch.exception.has_error_code) {
> + vmcs_write32(VM_EXIT_INTR_ERROR_CODE,
> vcpu->arch.exception.error_code);
>
>
> Should this be vmcs12->vm_exit_intr_error_code
> =
2017-07-24 22:44 GMT+08:00 Paolo Bonzini :
> On 24/07/2017 16:44, Wanpeng Li wrote:
>>> Wanpeng, can you test this on the testcases you had for commit
>>> d4912215d103 ("KVM: nVMX: Fix exception injection", 2017-06-05)?
>> Yeah, I will try it tomorrow. :)
>>
2017-07-24 22:44 GMT+08:00 Paolo Bonzini :
> On 24/07/2017 16:44, Wanpeng Li wrote:
>>> Wanpeng, can you test this on the testcases you had for commit
>>> d4912215d103 ("KVM: nVMX: Fix exception injection", 2017-06-05)?
>> Yeah, I will try it tomorrow. :)
>>
>>> Also, do
On 24/07/2017 16:44, Wanpeng Li wrote:
>> Wanpeng, can you test this on the testcases you had for commit
>> d4912215d103 ("KVM: nVMX: Fix exception injection", 2017-06-05)?
> Yeah, I will try it tomorrow. :)
>
>> Also, do you have a testcase for PFEC matching?
> I din't
On 24/07/2017 16:44, Wanpeng Li wrote:
>> Wanpeng, can you test this on the testcases you had for commit
>> d4912215d103 ("KVM: nVMX: Fix exception injection", 2017-06-05)?
> Yeah, I will try it tomorrow. :)
>
>> Also, do you have a testcase for PFEC matching?
> I din't
2017-07-24 22:20 GMT+08:00 Paolo Bonzini :
> There are three issues in nested_vmx_check_exception:
>
> 1) it is not taking PFEC_MATCH/PFEC_MASK into account, as reported
> by Wanpeng Li;
>
> 2) it should rebuild the interruption info and exit qualification fields
> from
2017-07-24 22:20 GMT+08:00 Paolo Bonzini :
> There are three issues in nested_vmx_check_exception:
>
> 1) it is not taking PFEC_MATCH/PFEC_MASK into account, as reported
> by Wanpeng Li;
>
> 2) it should rebuild the interruption info and exit qualification fields
> from scratch, as reported by Jim
There are three issues in nested_vmx_check_exception:
1) it is not taking PFEC_MATCH/PFEC_MASK into account, as reported
by Wanpeng Li;
2) it should rebuild the interruption info and exit qualification fields
from scratch, as reported by Jim Mattson, because the values from the
L2->L0 vmexit may
There are three issues in nested_vmx_check_exception:
1) it is not taking PFEC_MATCH/PFEC_MASK into account, as reported
by Wanpeng Li;
2) it should rebuild the interruption info and exit qualification fields
from scratch, as reported by Jim Mattson, because the values from the
L2->L0 vmexit may
14 matches
Mail list logo