Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On 06/03/20 10:44, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>>>> Define a macro RMODE_HOST_OWNED_EFLAGS_BITS for (X86_EFLAGS_IOPL |
>>>> X86_EFLAGS_VM) as suggested by Vitaly seems a good way to fix this ?
>>>> Thanks.
>>> No, what if a host-owned flag was zero? I'd just leave it as is.
>>>
>> I'm not saying my suggestion was a good idea but honestly I'm failing to
>> wrap my head around this. The suggested 'RMODE_HOST_OWNED_EFLAGS_BITS'
>> would just be a define for (X86_EFLAGS_IOPL | X86_EFLAGS_VM) so
>> technically the patch would just be nop, no?
>
> It would not be a nop for the reader.
>
> Something called RMODE_{GUEST,HOST}_OWNED_EFLAGS_BITS is a mask. It
> tells you nothing about whether those bugs are 0 or 1. It's just by
> chance that all three host-owned EFLAGS bits are 1 while in real mode.
> It wouldn't be the case if, for example, we ran the guest using vm86
> mode extensions (i.e. setting CR4.VME=1). Then VIF would be host-owned,
> but it wouldn't necessarily be 1.
Got it, it's the name which is causing the confusion, we're using mask
as something different. Make sense, let's keep the code as-is then.
--
Vitaly
