2014-10-01 20:14+0300, Nadav Amit: > On Oct 1, 2014, at 7:26 PM, Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 2014-09-30 20:49+0300, Nadav Amit: > >> Even after the recent fix, the assertion on paging_tmpl.h is triggered. > >> Apparently, the assertion wants to check that the PAE is always set on > >> long-mode, but does it in incorrect way. Note that the assertion is not > >> enabled unless the code is debugged by defining MMU_DEBUG. > > > > I think it was only supposed to be used together with > > (vcpu->cr3 & CR3_NONPAE_RESERVED_BITS) == 0) > > to checked if CR3 does not contain ones where it shouldn't when in short > > mode without PAE, because SDM says > > the lower 12 bits of the address are assumed to be 0. > > and when we (incorrectly) removed the second part of condition, it > > started to bug. > > > > I'd remove the new assert, it does not nothing useful, but is correct > > Reviewed-by: Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > >> - ASSERT(!is_long_mode(vcpu) && is_pae(vcpu)); > >> + ASSERT(!is_long_mode(vcpu) || is_pae(vcpu)); > > I am ok with removing the assertion. Due to the multiple changes, I lost track what it was supposed to do. (It didn't say reserved when it was introduced and refactoring was done by different author.) > Anyhow, removing the second part was required since there are no reserved bits in non-pae (they are ignored - not reserved). Thanks, I thought that "assumed" is "shit will hit the fan unless", and that this assert made it instant and clear. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
