Re: [Xen-devel] Weekly VMX status report. Xen: #18846 & Xen0: #749

[Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 13/12/2008 22:43, "Nakajima, Jun" <jun.nakajima@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>> I think you agree that we don't need to keep guest 'actual' EFER.NX in
>> sync with its 'shadow' EFER.NX?
>> 
> 
> That should be okay. The fact we see the NX bit in the shadow page tables
> means at least the BSP enabled NX. And I don't expect other processors would
> do otherwise. In other words, such out-of-sync situations be transient anyway.

It only matters if we think any guest depends on correct behaviour (i.e.,
reserved-bit #PF) when EFER.NX=0. Which I doubt.

 -- Keir



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel