Joerg Roedel <joro@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 01:42:43PM -0400, Bandan Das wrote: >> Joerg Roedel <joro@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> > On Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 12:54:43PM -0400, Bandan Das wrote: >> >> Joerg Roedel <joro@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> The problems is that the next_rip field could be stale. If the processor supports >> >> next_rip, then it will clear it out on the next entry. If it doesn't, >> >> an old value just sits there (no matter who wrote it) and the problem >> >> happens when skip_emulated_instruction advances the rip with an incorrect >> >> value. >> > >> > So the right fix would be to just set the guests next_rip to 0 when we >> > emulate vmrun, just like real hardware does, no? >> >> Agreed, resetting to 0 if nrips isn't supported seems right. It would still >> help having a printk_once in this case IMO :) > > I meant to reset it always to 0 on vmrun, like real hardware does. Atleast the spec don't mention this, I don't know how I got that idea :) The spec just say that it gets written to by hardware on certain intercepts and for others it gets reset to 0 on #VMEXIT. > > > Joerg -- 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
