On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 01:23:06PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: > Gleb Natapov wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 12:44:41PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > >>> Thinking about the implications: Independent of virtualization, this > >>> means that no code code can in any way rely on the STI shadow if there > >>> are NMIs present that could "consume" it. Because after return from > >>> those NMIs, interrupts could then be injected on the instruction that > >>> was originally under the shadow. > >>> > >> Wow. Maybe we should request an interrupt window instead when > >> blocked-by-STI is active instead of clearing it. > >> > > Wow indeed. We can remember blocked by sti state before injecting NMI > > and request nmi window open exit. When we get nmi window open exit we > > can restore blocked by sti flag. > > For sure we could. But I still wonder what happens to the shadow in such > a scenario on real HW. > Me too, so lets wait for vendor answer. -- Gleb. -- 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
