Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 02/14/2010 06:49 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> From: Jan Kiszka<jan.kiszka@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> The interrupt shadow created by STI or MOV-SS-like operations is part of
>> the VCPU state and must be preserved across migration. Transfer it in
>> the spare padding field of kvm_vcpu_events.interrupt.
>>
>> As a side effect we now have to make vmx_set_interrupt_shadow robust
>> against both shadow types being set. Give MOV SS a higher priority and
>> skip STI in that case to avoid that VMX throws a fault on next entry.
>>
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm.h
>> index f46b79f..4dd01e2 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm.h
>> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm.h
>> @@ -258,6 +258,9 @@ struct kvm_reinject_control {
>> #define KVM_VCPUEVENT_VALID_NMI_PENDING 0x00000001
>> #define KVM_VCPUEVENT_VALID_SIPI_VECTOR 0x00000002
>>
>> +#define X86_SHADOW_INT_MOV_SS 1
>> +#define X86_SHADOW_INT_STI 2
>> +
>>
>
> svm doesn't make a difference. Is it worth exposing this to userspace
> (and thus providing wrong information on svm)?
SVM already folds both reasons into one. Don't know if we should do it
at the generic layer already - probably.
>
> (in any case, needs a KVM_ prefix).
...and then this is no longer required. OK, will export this with
boolean meaning.
>
> Needs a KVM_CAP_ and flags bit.
Why if merged before 2.6.33? We haven't released KVM_CAP_VCPU_EVENTS yet.
Jan
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
