[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] This patch fixes several issues related to vmxassist
- To: "Keir Fraser" <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- From: "Li, Xin B" <xin.b.li@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 19:06:08 +0800
- Cc: Xen Devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 11:07:49 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
- Thread-index: AcZUqC5wVY7W+52IToqb9lbzaT+Y7wACczUA
- Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] This patch fixes several issues related to vmxassist
>In fact, the existing implementation of address() is kludgy.
>does tests on the selector value to decide whether it is likely to
>refer to a protected-mode or real-mode segment. Unfortunately the test
>may sometimes yield false positives (selectors that look like they
>could be a valid protected-mode value, but actually it's some
>I don't know the heritage of that code. I expect someone
>decided it was
>good enough to be getting on with but maybe now it is time to revisit
>and see if we can implement a watertight version which correctly uses
>hidden segment descriptor state which is readily available
My patch just enhanced the current implementation, and actually it
breaks windows, but I have a updated version in hand, and tests show
that all the combinations is OK till now.
In my mind, the correct way is to identify whether a cpu is in big real
mode, but seems this is a little bit hard to do.
>It might be worth pinging Leendert about this and see what he thinks.
Yes, we have contact with him :-)
Xen-devel mailing list