From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Razvan Cojocaru Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC V4 1/5] xen: Emulate with no writes Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2014 11:42:00 +0300 Message-ID: <53E1EA58.2010001@bitdefender.com> References: <1407151825-3843-1-git-send-email-rcojocaru@bitdefender.com> <53DFB0440200007800029111@mail.emea.novell.com> <53E0F54A.6090801@bitdefender.com> <53E117C902000078000298CC@mail.emea.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <53E117C902000078000298CC@mail.emea.novell.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: Jan Beulich Cc: kevin.tian@intel.com, ian.campbell@citrix.com, stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com, andrew.cooper3@citrix.com, eddie.dong@intel.com, xen-devel@lists.xen.org, jun.nakajima@intel.com, ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 08/05/2014 06:43 PM, Jan Beulich wrote: > it. And quite different from your case - you want the instruction to > behave normally _except_ for the memory write as I understood so far > (albeit it still escapes me how in the end correct behavior can result). The scenario in such cases is quite special: the decision to emulate without writing is usually made for things such as rootkits, and allowing a rogue application to go ahead with a write generally means allowing it to do bad things - so in that case the alternative is preferable. Thanks, Razvan Cojocaru