Avi Kivity wrote: > On 11/15/2009 04:29 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: >> Avi Kivity wrote: >> >>> On 11/15/2009 02:51 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>> "replacing" exceptions is dangerous in the case of debug exceptions >>>>> and machine checks, since restarting execution won't recover them. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> But not replacing them is not better. No point in re-injecting >>>> exception that causes another exception. >>>> >>>> >>> Right, just pointing out there's still a small hole left. Replacing is >>> much better ignoring. >>> >> Is the hardware doing some queuing in this case? > > Gleb has verified by testing, and Intel has confirmed, that the hardware > does not queue, and will in fact lose traps and NMIs in such a case. So > the small hole is actually present in the processor and we're better off > not queueing! I've forgotten about this but Gleb reminded me. > >> Would it be overly >> complicated to adopt the real behavior here? >> > > Not only would it be difficult, it would also be incorrect. > I'm all for correctness - so this correctly drop events. :) Jan
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
