From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Razvan Cojocaru <rcojocaru@bitdefender.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC V8 5/5] xen: Handle resumed instruction
 based on previous mem_event reply
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2014 10:30:07 +0300
Message-ID: <53FEDA7F.9020701@bitdefender.com>
References: <1409148101-11703-1-git-send-email-rcojocaru@bitdefender.com>	<1409148101-11703-5-git-send-email-rcojocaru@bitdefender.com>	<53FE1AD8020000780002E32C@mail.emea.novell.com>
	<AADFC41AFE54684AB9EE6CBC0274A5D126050235@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
Received: from mail6.bemta3.messagelabs.com ([195.245.230.39])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <rcojocaru@bitdefender.com>) id 1XMu9X-0001xt-RA
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Thu, 28 Aug 2014 07:29:51 +0000
In-Reply-To: <AADFC41AFE54684AB9EE6CBC0274A5D126050235@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.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: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@intel.com>, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: "Dong, Eddie" <eddie.dong@intel.com>, "stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com" <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>, "andrew.cooper3@citrix.com" <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>, "tim@xen.org" <tim@xen.org>, "Nakajima, Jun" <jun.nakajima@intel.com>, "xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org" <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>, "ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com" <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>, "ian.campbell@citrix.com" <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 08/28/2014 12:06 AM, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:JBeulich@suse.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 8:52 AM
>>
>>>>> On 27.08.14 at 16:01, <rcojocaru@bitdefender.com> wrote:
>>> +static bool_t vmx_exited_by_nested_pagefault(void)
>>> +{
>>> +    unsigned long exit_qualification;
>>> +
>>> +    __vmread(EXIT_QUALIFICATION, &exit_qualification);
>>> +
>>> +    if ( (exit_qualification & EPT_GLA_FAULT) == 0 )
>>
>> It just occurred to me - Is this a valid check for any but
>> EXIT_REASON_EPT_VIOLATION? I didn't think the bits here carry
>> the same meaning regardless of exit kind...
>>
> 
> You're right. GLA bit definition is only for EPT violation.

I'll check the exit reason as well.


Thanks,
Razvan Cojocaru