From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@novell.com>
Subject: VMX check_for_null_selector()
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 09:46:55 +0100
Message-ID: <45641C8F.76E4.0078.0@novell.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com>
Content-Disposition: inline
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
To: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

What is the hidden background for using this function when the guest
is in protected mode? When the selector used is a null one (and not
in 64-bit mode), the instruction should not cause an
EXIT_REASON_IO_INSTRUCTION exit at all, but rather should cause
a GP fault in the guest. In 64-bit mode, a null selector isn't invalid,
and hence doesn't need checking for.
What I'm trying to determine is whether the function must be fixed
(to deal with (a) non-zero CS base addresses and (b) the fact that
on INS there shouldn't be checking for segment overrides, but ES
should be used in all cases) or can be removed.

Thanks, Jan