On 12.09.2019 17:42, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 04:47:17PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 12.09.2019 16:44, Roger Pau Monné wrote: >>> On a different question, AFAICT hvm_set_cr3 should never be called >>> with X86_CR3_NOFLUSH set? If so, do you think it would make sense to >>> add an assert to that regard? >> >> I've been debating this with myself, and decided against for now. >> We don't know what meaning the bit may gain eventually in the >> actual register. > > I'm slightly lost here, the noflush bit is actually defined in the > Intel SDM for cr3, and hence won't gain any other meaning?
The noflush bit is a operation one, i.e. taking effect on the MOV-to-CR3, without getting written to the underlying register. Therefore there may well appear a meaning for the actual register bit, but I agree it doesn't seem very likely for such an overload to get put in place. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xenemail@example.com https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel