On 04/12/2011 03:22 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 03:19:00PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 04/12/2011 12:36 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >mmio_index should be taken into account when copying data from
> >userspace.
> >
> >Signed-off-by: Gleb Natapov<gleb@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >---
> > arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 3 ++-
> > 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> >
> >diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> >index b568779..609c7ab 100644
> >--- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> >+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> >@@ -5518,7 +5518,8 @@ static int complete_mmio(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > if (vcpu->mmio_needed) {
> > vcpu->mmio_needed = 0;
> > if (!vcpu->mmio_is_write)
> >- memcpy(vcpu->mmio_data, run->mmio.data, 8);
> >+ memcpy(vcpu->mmio_data + vcpu->mmio_index,
> >+ run->mmio.data, 8);
> > vcpu->mmio_index += 8;
> > if (vcpu->mmio_index< vcpu->mmio_size) {
> > run->exit_reason = KVM_EXIT_MMIO;
>
> Interesting, the code passed the emulator.flat sse test. Does it now?
>
It pass now and before. Probably by chance.
I don't understand how. I explicitly set the values so that it would
fail in that case.
Can you patch the test to fail with the current code?
But if I change read_emulated() to do
int n = min(size, (unsigned)KVM_MMIO_SIZE);
instead of
int n = min(size, 8u);
emulator.flat fails to emulate far jump instruction.
Ouch, looks like we have the multi-transaction support in two places. I
guess this is what made sse mmio work.
Not sure what we should do (patch is fine, question is how to resolve
the duplication).
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
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
