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
> the only way.
> The old code was somewhat broken (but only in the case that a
> was attached), but now with this introspection hook active,
> `0xcd 0x03` will end up crashing the domain because of a length
> 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
> touch this code, we seem to break it :(
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?
This email was scanned by Bitdefender
Xen-devel mailing list