On 23/07/2017 03:11, Jim Mattson wrote:
>>> In the situation you describe, the #PF causes a synthesized VM-exit
>>> from L2 to L1 directly, not indirectly. From the SDM:
>>>
>>>An exception causes a VM exit directly if the bit corresponding to
>>> that exception is set in the exception bitmap.
On 23/07/2017 03:11, Jim Mattson wrote:
>>> In the situation you describe, the #PF causes a synthesized VM-exit
>>> from L2 to L1 directly, not indirectly. From the SDM:
>>>
>>>An exception causes a VM exit directly if the bit corresponding to
>>> that exception is set in the exception bitmap.
I think the ancillary data for #DB and #PF should be added to
kvm_queued_exception and plumbed through to where it's needed. Vector
number and error code are not sufficient to describe a #DB or #PF.
On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 5:29 PM, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> 2017-07-22 22:25
I think the ancillary data for #DB and #PF should be added to
kvm_queued_exception and plumbed through to where it's needed. Vector
number and error code are not sufficient to describe a #DB or #PF.
On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 5:29 PM, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> 2017-07-22 22:25 GMT+08:00 Jim Mattson :
>>
2017-07-22 22:25 GMT+08:00 Jim Mattson :
> On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 1:39 AM, Wanpeng Li wrote:
>> Hi Jim,
>> 2017-07-21 3:16 GMT+08:00 Jim Mattson :
>>> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 7:31 PM, Wanpeng Li wrote:
Hi
2017-07-22 22:25 GMT+08:00 Jim Mattson :
> On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 1:39 AM, Wanpeng Li wrote:
>> Hi Jim,
>> 2017-07-21 3:16 GMT+08:00 Jim Mattson :
>>> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 7:31 PM, Wanpeng Li wrote:
Hi Jim,
2017-07-19 2:47 GMT+08:00 Jim Mattson :
> Why do we expect the
On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 1:39 AM, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> Hi Jim,
> 2017-07-21 3:16 GMT+08:00 Jim Mattson :
>> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 7:31 PM, Wanpeng Li wrote:
>>> Hi Jim,
>>> 2017-07-19 2:47 GMT+08:00 Jim Mattson :
On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 1:39 AM, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> Hi Jim,
> 2017-07-21 3:16 GMT+08:00 Jim Mattson :
>> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 7:31 PM, Wanpeng Li wrote:
>>> Hi Jim,
>>> 2017-07-19 2:47 GMT+08:00 Jim Mattson :
Why do we expect the VM_EXIT_INTR_INFO and EXIT_QUALIFICATION fields
of
Hi Jim,
2017-07-21 3:16 GMT+08:00 Jim Mattson :
> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 7:31 PM, Wanpeng Li wrote:
>> Hi Jim,
>> 2017-07-19 2:47 GMT+08:00 Jim Mattson :
>>> Why do we expect the VM_EXIT_INTR_INFO and EXIT_QUALIFICATION fields
>>> of
Hi Jim,
2017-07-21 3:16 GMT+08:00 Jim Mattson :
> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 7:31 PM, Wanpeng Li wrote:
>> Hi Jim,
>> 2017-07-19 2:47 GMT+08:00 Jim Mattson :
>>> Why do we expect the VM_EXIT_INTR_INFO and EXIT_QUALIFICATION fields
>>> of the VMCS to have the correct values for the injected
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 7:31 PM, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> Hi Jim,
> 2017-07-19 2:47 GMT+08:00 Jim Mattson :
>> Why do we expect the VM_EXIT_INTR_INFO and EXIT_QUALIFICATION fields
>> of the VMCS to have the correct values for the injected exception?
>
> Good
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 7:31 PM, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> Hi Jim,
> 2017-07-19 2:47 GMT+08:00 Jim Mattson :
>> Why do we expect the VM_EXIT_INTR_INFO and EXIT_QUALIFICATION fields
>> of the VMCS to have the correct values for the injected exception?
>
> Good point, I think we should synthesize
Hi Jim,
2017-07-19 2:47 GMT+08:00 Jim Mattson :
> Why do we expect the VM_EXIT_INTR_INFO and EXIT_QUALIFICATION fields
> of the VMCS to have the correct values for the injected exception?
Good point, I think we should synthesize VM_EXIT_INTR_INFO and
EXIT_QUALIFICATION
Hi Jim,
2017-07-19 2:47 GMT+08:00 Jim Mattson :
> Why do we expect the VM_EXIT_INTR_INFO and EXIT_QUALIFICATION fields
> of the VMCS to have the correct values for the injected exception?
Good point, I think we should synthesize VM_EXIT_INTR_INFO and
EXIT_QUALIFICATION manually, I will post a
Why do we expect the VM_EXIT_INTR_INFO and EXIT_QUALIFICATION fields
of the VMCS to have the correct values for the injected exception?
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 5:19 AM, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> 2017-06-05 20:07 GMT+08:00 Paolo Bonzini :
>>
>>
>> On 03/06/2017
Why do we expect the VM_EXIT_INTR_INFO and EXIT_QUALIFICATION fields
of the VMCS to have the correct values for the injected exception?
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 5:19 AM, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> 2017-06-05 20:07 GMT+08:00 Paolo Bonzini :
>>
>>
>> On 03/06/2017 05:21, Wanpeng Li wrote:
>>> Commit
2017-06-05 20:07 GMT+08:00 Paolo Bonzini :
>
>
> On 03/06/2017 05:21, Wanpeng Li wrote:
>> Commit 0b6ac343fc (KVM: nVMX: Correct handling of exception injection)
>> mentioned
>> that "KVM wants to inject page-faults which it got to the guest. This
>> function
>> assumes it
2017-06-05 20:07 GMT+08:00 Paolo Bonzini :
>
>
> On 03/06/2017 05:21, Wanpeng Li wrote:
>> Commit 0b6ac343fc (KVM: nVMX: Correct handling of exception injection)
>> mentioned
>> that "KVM wants to inject page-faults which it got to the guest. This
>> function
>> assumes it is called with the
On 03/06/2017 05:21, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> Commit 0b6ac343fc (KVM: nVMX: Correct handling of exception injection)
> mentioned
> that "KVM wants to inject page-faults which it got to the guest. This
> function
> assumes it is called with the exit reason in vmcs02 being a #PF exception".
>
On 03/06/2017 05:21, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> Commit 0b6ac343fc (KVM: nVMX: Correct handling of exception injection)
> mentioned
> that "KVM wants to inject page-faults which it got to the guest. This
> function
> assumes it is called with the exit reason in vmcs02 being a #PF exception".
>
20 matches
Mail list logo