On 10.02.2020 14:29, Andrew Cooper wrote: > On 10/02/2020 13:22, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 08.02.2020 16:19, Andrew Cooper wrote: >>> --- a/docs/misc/pvh.pandoc >>> +++ b/docs/misc/pvh.pandoc >>> @@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ following machine state: >>> * `cs`: must be a 32-bit read/execute code segment with a base of ‘0’ >>> and a limit of ‘0xFFFFFFFF’. The selector value is unspecified. >>> >>> - * `ds`, `es`: must be a 32-bit read/write data segment with a base of >>> + * `ds`, `es`, `ss`: must be a 32-bit read/write data segment with a base >>> of >>> ‘0’ and a limit of ‘0xFFFFFFFF’. The selector values are all >>> unspecified. >> Wouldn't this want accompanying with an adjustment to >> xen/arch/x86/hvm/domain.c:check_segment(), which right now >> isn't in line with either old or new version of this doc? > > What do you thing is missing? It too is written with the expectation of > %es being set up, which I checked before sending this patch.
The function for example looks to permit zero segment attributes for both DS and ES. It also looks to permit non-writable attributes for both, and a non-readable CS. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
