On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 08:30:18PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On Jun 3, 2013 7:41 PM, "Gleb Natapov" wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 06:42:11PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 7:34 PM, Paolo Bonzini
> wrote:
> > > > Il 30/05/2013 17:34, Paolo Bonzini ha scritto:
> >
Il 03/06/2013 18:40, Gleb Natapov ha scritto:
>> > Won't work, vmx won't let you enter in such a configuration.
>
> Why? It is possible to have NULL descriptor in 32bit mode with vmx. But
> we do not usually intercept #GP while executing 32bit mode, so we will
> have to track if there is
On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 06:42:11PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 7:34 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > Il 30/05/2013 17:34, Paolo Bonzini ha scritto:
> >> Il 30/05/2013 16:35, Paolo Bonzini ha scritto:
> >>> The x86-64 extended low-byte registers were fetched correctly from reg,
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 7:34 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 30/05/2013 17:34, Paolo Bonzini ha scritto:
>> Il 30/05/2013 16:35, Paolo Bonzini ha scritto:
>>> The x86-64 extended low-byte registers were fetched correctly from reg,
>>> but not from mod/rm.
>>>
>>> This fixes another bug in the boot
Il 03/06/2013 12:25, Gleb Natapov ha scritto:
> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 05:34:21PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> Il 30/05/2013 16:35, Paolo Bonzini ha scritto:
>>> The x86-64 extended low-byte registers were fetched correctly from reg,
>>> but not from mod/rm.
>>>
>>> This fixes another bug in
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 05:34:21PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 30/05/2013 16:35, Paolo Bonzini ha scritto:
> > The x86-64 extended low-byte registers were fetched correctly from reg,
> > but not from mod/rm.
> >
> > This fixes another bug in the boot of RHEL5.9 64-bit, but it is still
> >
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 04:35:55PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> The x86-64 extended low-byte registers were fetched correctly from reg,
> but not from mod/rm.
>
> This fixes another bug in the boot of RHEL5.9 64-bit, but it is still
> not enough.
>
> Cc: gnata...@redhat.com
> Cc:
Il 03/06/2013 10:04, Gleb Natapov ha scritto:
> On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 08:27:57AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> Il 02/06/2013 20:12, Gleb Natapov ha scritto:
>>> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 04:35:55PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
The x86-64 extended low-byte registers were fetched correctly from
On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 08:27:57AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 02/06/2013 20:12, Gleb Natapov ha scritto:
> > On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 04:35:55PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >> The x86-64 extended low-byte registers were fetched correctly from reg,
> >> but not from mod/rm.
> >>
> >> This
Il 02/06/2013 20:12, Gleb Natapov ha scritto:
> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 04:35:55PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> The x86-64 extended low-byte registers were fetched correctly from reg,
>> but not from mod/rm.
>>
>> This fixes another bug in the boot of RHEL5.9 64-bit, but it is still
>> not
Il 02/06/2013 20:12, Gleb Natapov ha scritto:
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 04:35:55PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
The x86-64 extended low-byte registers were fetched correctly from reg,
but not from mod/rm.
This fixes another bug in the boot of RHEL5.9 64-bit, but it is still
not enough.
Did I
On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 08:27:57AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 02/06/2013 20:12, Gleb Natapov ha scritto:
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 04:35:55PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
The x86-64 extended low-byte registers were fetched correctly from reg,
but not from mod/rm.
This fixes another bug
Il 03/06/2013 10:04, Gleb Natapov ha scritto:
On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 08:27:57AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 02/06/2013 20:12, Gleb Natapov ha scritto:
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 04:35:55PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
The x86-64 extended low-byte registers were fetched correctly from reg,
but
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 04:35:55PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
The x86-64 extended low-byte registers were fetched correctly from reg,
but not from mod/rm.
This fixes another bug in the boot of RHEL5.9 64-bit, but it is still
not enough.
Cc: gnata...@redhat.com
Cc: k...@vger.kernel.org
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 05:34:21PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 30/05/2013 16:35, Paolo Bonzini ha scritto:
The x86-64 extended low-byte registers were fetched correctly from reg,
but not from mod/rm.
This fixes another bug in the boot of RHEL5.9 64-bit, but it is still
not enough.
Il 03/06/2013 12:25, Gleb Natapov ha scritto:
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 05:34:21PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 30/05/2013 16:35, Paolo Bonzini ha scritto:
The x86-64 extended low-byte registers were fetched correctly from reg,
but not from mod/rm.
This fixes another bug in the boot of
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 7:34 PM, Paolo Bonzini pbonz...@redhat.com wrote:
Il 30/05/2013 17:34, Paolo Bonzini ha scritto:
Il 30/05/2013 16:35, Paolo Bonzini ha scritto:
The x86-64 extended low-byte registers were fetched correctly from reg,
but not from mod/rm.
This fixes another bug in the
On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 06:42:11PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 7:34 PM, Paolo Bonzini pbonz...@redhat.com wrote:
Il 30/05/2013 17:34, Paolo Bonzini ha scritto:
Il 30/05/2013 16:35, Paolo Bonzini ha scritto:
The x86-64 extended low-byte registers were fetched correctly
Il 03/06/2013 18:40, Gleb Natapov ha scritto:
Won't work, vmx won't let you enter in such a configuration.
Why? It is possible to have NULL descriptor in 32bit mode with vmx. But
we do not usually intercept #GP while executing 32bit mode, so we will
have to track if there is artificial NULL
On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 08:30:18PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
On Jun 3, 2013 7:41 PM, Gleb Natapov g...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 06:42:11PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 7:34 PM, Paolo Bonzini pbonz...@redhat.com
wrote:
Il 30/05/2013 17:34, Paolo
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 04:35:55PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> The x86-64 extended low-byte registers were fetched correctly from reg,
> but not from mod/rm.
>
> This fixes another bug in the boot of RHEL5.9 64-bit, but it is still
> not enough.
>
Did I missed unit test patch? :)
> Cc:
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 04:35:55PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
The x86-64 extended low-byte registers were fetched correctly from reg,
but not from mod/rm.
This fixes another bug in the boot of RHEL5.9 64-bit, but it is still
not enough.
Did I missed unit test patch? :)
Cc:
Il 30/05/2013 17:34, Paolo Bonzini ha scritto:
> Il 30/05/2013 16:35, Paolo Bonzini ha scritto:
>> The x86-64 extended low-byte registers were fetched correctly from reg,
>> but not from mod/rm.
>>
>> This fixes another bug in the boot of RHEL5.9 64-bit, but it is still
>> not enough.
>
> Well,
Il 30/05/2013 16:35, Paolo Bonzini ha scritto:
> The x86-64 extended low-byte registers were fetched correctly from reg,
> but not from mod/rm.
>
> This fixes another bug in the boot of RHEL5.9 64-bit, but it is still
> not enough.
Well, it is enough but it takes 2 minutes to reach the point
The x86-64 extended low-byte registers were fetched correctly from reg,
but not from mod/rm.
This fixes another bug in the boot of RHEL5.9 64-bit, but it is still
not enough.
Cc: gnata...@redhat.com
Cc: k...@vger.kernel.org
Cc: # 3.9
Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini
---
arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c | 5
The x86-64 extended low-byte registers were fetched correctly from reg,
but not from mod/rm.
This fixes another bug in the boot of RHEL5.9 64-bit, but it is still
not enough.
Cc: gnata...@redhat.com
Cc: k...@vger.kernel.org
Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org # 3.9
Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini
Il 30/05/2013 16:35, Paolo Bonzini ha scritto:
The x86-64 extended low-byte registers were fetched correctly from reg,
but not from mod/rm.
This fixes another bug in the boot of RHEL5.9 64-bit, but it is still
not enough.
Well, it is enough but it takes 2 minutes to reach the point where
Il 30/05/2013 17:34, Paolo Bonzini ha scritto:
Il 30/05/2013 16:35, Paolo Bonzini ha scritto:
The x86-64 extended low-byte registers were fetched correctly from reg,
but not from mod/rm.
This fixes another bug in the boot of RHEL5.9 64-bit, but it is still
not enough.
Well, it is enough
28 matches
Mail list logo
