From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: Xen HVM regression on certain Intel CPUs Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 08:48:00 -0700 Message-ID: <515C4F30.4060002@zytor.com> References: <515C402A02000078000CA55C@nat28.tlf.novell.com> <40776A41FC278F40B59438AD47D147A910915CDE@SHSMSX102.ccr.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <40776A41FC278F40B59438AD47D147A910915CDE@SHSMSX102.ccr.corp.intel.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: "Xu, Dongxiao" Cc: "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" , "Nakajima, Jun" , Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk , "Shan, Haitao" , "wei.y.yang@intel.com" , "Dong, Eddie" , Stefan Bader , Keir Fraser , "xin.li@intel.com" , Jan Beulich , "Zhang, Xiantao" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 04/03/2013 08:00 AM, Xu, Dongxiao wrote: > > Yes, it is a good fix. Thank you! > I didn't test non-HAP case when I made the patch to fix this SMEP issue. > Now, won't SMAP have exactly the same issue (and so need to be added to the same mask?) -hpa -- H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.