OBOn Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 06:22:47PM +0800, Yu Zhang wrote: > > > > > > > > IIUC, LAM_47 userspace canonical checking rule requests "bit 63 == > > > > bit 47 == 0" > > > > before sign-extened the address. > > > > > > > > if so looks it's guest's fault to not follow the LAM canonical > > > > checking rule, > > > > what's the behavior of such violation on bare metal, #GP ? > > > > > > Spec (ISE 10.2) doesn't mention a #GP for this case. IIUC, those > > > overlap bits are zeroed. > > > > I mean the behavior of violation of "bit 63 == bit 47 == 0" rule, > > yes no words in ISE 10.2/3 describe the behavior of such violation > > case, but do you know more details of this or had some experiments > > on hardware/SIMIC ? > > Yes, the ISE is vague. But I do believe a #GP will be generated for > such violation, and KVM shall inject one if guest does no follow the > requirement, because such check is called(by the spec) as a "modified > canonicality check". Me too and that's why I had replies here :-) > > Anyway, we'd better confirm with the spec owner, instead of making > assumptions by ourselves. :) Agree! > > B.R. > Yu
