This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
Home Products Support Community News


Re: [Xen-devel] Re: Crash with c/s 20097 (x86 vmx: Update EIP when appro

To: Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: Crash with c/s 20097 (x86 vmx: Update EIP when appropriate during task switch)
From: Tim Deegan <Tim.Deegan@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 13:56:28 +0000
Cc: Kouya, "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Shimura <kouya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 05:56:50 -0800
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <C73C1F38.3519%keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <C73C098C.350E%keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <C73C1F38.3519%keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
At 13:42 +0000 on 02 Dec (1259761336), Keir Fraser wrote:
> I refactored the code as xen-unstable:20561. If that looks agreeable and
> correct to you then I will also backport to 3.4-testing.

Looks fine to me. 

> > Fortunately we never inject software interrupts or exceptions. I reworked
> > the code to avoid that a long time ago, due to just such concerns. Possibly
> > we should even ASSERT as such in the event-injection functions.
> I decided against this because we write to VM_ENTRY_INTR_INFO in a few
> places so it's not nice and centralised. But it's pretty obvious that SWInts
> and SWExcs are not in the picture since we never write
> VM_ENTRY_INSTRUCTION_LENGTH. So we're obviously safe (or even more utterly
> broken :-) ).

That's grand then. :)


Tim Deegan <Tim.Deegan@xxxxxxxxxx>
Principal Software Engineer, Citrix Systems (R&D) Ltd.
[Company #02300071, SL9 0DZ, UK.]

Xen-devel mailing list