From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: 2.6.38.1 general protection fault Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 20:02:47 +0200 Message-ID: <4D90CD47.7010107@redhat.com> References: <4D8C6110.6090204@wpkg.org> <4D8DAE94.7070604@redhat.com> <4D8DC307.7090400@wpkg.org> <4D8F068B.5030209@redhat.com> <4D902997.80004@wpkg.org> <4D9052B7.2070508@redhat.com> <20110328175437.GB12265@random.random> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Tomasz Chmielewski , "kvm@vger.kernel.org" , Marcelo Tosatti To: Andrea Arcangeli Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:14468 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754351Ab1C1SCu (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Mar 2011 14:02:50 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20110328175437.GB12265@random.random> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 03/28/2011 07:54 PM, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > BTW, is it genuine that a protection fault is generated instead of a page > fault while dereferencing address 0x00008805d6b087f8? I would normally > except a page fault from a memory dereference that doesn't alter > processor state/segments. Yes. Bits 48-63 of the address must be equal to bit 47, or a #GP is generated (non-canonical address). -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function