At 13:32 +0100 on 08 Apr (1554730320), Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 08/04/2019 13:11, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 08.04.19 at 13:37, wrote:
> >> On 08/04/2019 11:14, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> On 05.04.19 at 21:09, wrote:
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/mm/shadow/multi.c
> +++
On 08/04/2019 13:11, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 08.04.19 at 13:37, wrote:
>> On 08/04/2019 11:14, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 05.04.19 at 21:09, wrote:
--- a/xen/arch/x86/mm/shadow/multi.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm/shadow/multi.c
@@ -3305,8 +3305,9 @@ static int sh_page_fault(struct
>>> On 08.04.19 at 13:37, wrote:
> On 08/04/2019 11:14, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 05.04.19 at 21:09, wrote:
>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/mm/shadow/multi.c
>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm/shadow/multi.c
>>> @@ -3305,8 +3305,9 @@ static int sh_page_fault(struct vcpu *v,
>>> {
>>> /*
>>>
On 08/04/2019 11:14, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 05.04.19 at 21:09, wrote:
>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/mm/shadow/multi.c
>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm/shadow/multi.c
>> @@ -3305,8 +3305,9 @@ static int sh_page_fault(struct vcpu *v,
>> {
>> /*
>> * If we are in the middle of injecting
>>> On 05.04.19 at 21:09, wrote:
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/mm/shadow/multi.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm/shadow/multi.c
> @@ -3305,8 +3305,9 @@ static int sh_page_fault(struct vcpu *v,
> {
> /*
> * If we are in the middle of injecting an exception or interrupt
> then
> - *
During development of the XTF pagewalk tests, I reliably encountered this
message exactly once per run. It occurs when the first action to touch
TSS.RSP0 is an interrupt/exception taken in userspace, and the processor tries
to push the IRET frame.
Subsequently, OSSTest has demonstrated that it
