From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: David Vrabel <dvrabel@cantab.net>
Subject: Re: x86_64: Fix off-by-one error setting up the
 Interrupt Stack Tables
Date: Wed, 09 May 2012 11:53:29 +0100
Message-ID: <4FAA4CA9.6080702@cantab.net>
References: <4FAA4554.3080005@citrix.com>
	<1336559473.25514.64.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <1336559473.25514.64.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>
Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>, "Keir (Xen.org)" <keir@xen.org>, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>, "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 09/05/12 11:31, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-05-09 at 11:22 +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> diff -r 8f1e0cc4a507 xen/include/asm-x86/processor.h
>> --- a/xen/include/asm-x86/processor.h
>> +++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/processor.h
>> @@ -424,7 +424,9 @@ struct tss_struct {
>>      union { u64 rsp1, esp1; };
>>      union { u64 rsp2, esp2; };
>>      u64 reserved1;
>> -    u64 ist[7];
>> +    u64 ist[7]; /* Interrupt Stack Table is 1-based so tss->ist[0]
>> +                 * corresponds to an IST value of 1 in an Interrupt
>> +                 * Descriptor */
> 
> Would it be too sneaky to drop "reserved1" and make ist be 8 elements?
> then ist[1] would actually be the slot corresponding to a value of 1 in
> an IDT entry.

We did discuss this briefly internally and I thought it would be too
sneaky.  But perhaps it is ok if there is also #define IST_RESERVED 0
and a comment.

David