On Lu, 2018-02-12 at 15:54 +0000, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 12/02/18 15:08, Alexandru Isaila wrote:
> >
> > @@ -2619,14 +2634,31 @@ void svm_vmexit_handler(struct
> > cpu_user_regs *regs)
> >          break;
> >
> >      case VMEXIT_EXCEPTION_BP:
> > -        if ( !v->domain->debugger_attached )
> > -            goto unexpected_exit_type;
> > -        /* AMD Vol2, 15.11: INT3, INTO, BOUND intercepts do not
> > update RIP. */
> > -        if ( (inst_len = __get_instruction_length(v, INSTR_INT3))
> > == 0 )
> > +        inst_len = __get_instruction_length(v, INSTR_INT3);
> There are multiple ways of ending up with this vmexit, and INT3 is
> not
> the only way.
>
> The old code was somewhat broken (but only in the case that a
> debugger
> was attached), but now with  this introspection hook active,
> executing
> `0xcd 0x03` will end up crashing the domain because of a length
> mismatch
> looking for 0xcc.
>
> You need to inspect EXITINTINFO to work out what went on here, and
> distinguish INT3 from INT $3.
>
> Can I suggest that you run this unit test
> http://xenbits.xen.org/docs/xtf/test-swint-emulation.html under debug
> introspection an check that you get all expected events?  Every time
> we
> touch this code, we seem to break it :(
>
> ~Andrew
>
I've tested on Intel and AMD and I only get events on int3. Further
more, I don't think there is any way to use the vmcb->exitintinfo
because all the fields are 0 on the time of VMEXIT_EXCEPTION_BP. Did I
understand the test scenario correctly?

Thanks,
Alex

________________________
This email was scanned by Bitdefender
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Reply via email to