From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [PATCH] disable interrupt shadow state for emulated instruction Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2009 10:41:19 +0300 Message-ID: <49DDA69F.9040808@redhat.com> References: <1239213452-5966-1-git-send-email-glommer@redhat.com> <49DCE9E5.8020703@zytor.com> <20090408183110.GD25323@poweredge.glommer> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" , kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: Glauber Costa Return-path: Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:36143 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751767AbZDIHkl (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Apr 2009 03:40:41 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20090408183110.GD25323@poweredge.glommer> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Glauber Costa wrote: >> How does this logic work when the instruction emulated is an STI or MOV >> SS instruction? In particular, when does GUEST_INTERRUPTIBILITY_INFO >> sets set to reflect the *blocking* operation? >> > mov ss is a non-issue, since it is executed natively. > Except in big real mode (needs emulate_invalid_guest_state = 1). > As for sti, I'm not sure. I see code for emulating sti, but in my testings, > this code was never ever touched, under a number of different scenarios. > Avi, can you clarify if sti can be in fact emulated, and under which > circunstamces? > big real mode only. -- I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this signature is too narrow to contain.