Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v12 4/4] x86emul: Raise #UD when emulating an unrecognized instruction.

[Petre Ovidiu PIRCALABU <ppircalabu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Jo, 2017-09-21 at 06:44 -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > On 21.09.17 at 10:57, <Paul.Durrant@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > From: Petre Pircalabu [mailto:ppircalabu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > > Sent: 21 September 2017 06:12
> > > --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/realmode.c
> > > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/realmode.c
> > > @@ -106,12 +106,21 @@ void vmx_realmode_emulate_one(struct
> > > hvm_emulate_ctxt *hvmemul_ctxt)
> > >      if ( hvm_vcpu_io_need_completion(vio) || vio->mmio_retry )
> > >          vio->io_completion = HVMIO_realmode_completion;
> > >
> > > -    if ( rc == X86EMUL_UNHANDLEABLE || rc ==
> > > X86EMUL_UNIMPLEMENTED
> > > )
> > > +    if ( rc == X86EMUL_UNHANDLEABLE )
> > I don't quite understand this change. Why has it become unnecessary
> > to deal
> > with X86EMUL_UNIMPLEMENTED? Patch #1 added this change so it seems
> > odd that
> > patch #4 would then revert it.
> Yeah, it would certainly be more natural to bring things into
> their final shape right away.
>
> Jan
>
>
> ________________________
> This email was scanned by Bitdefender
Thank-you very much for your observation.
I will squash this patch into the first patch of the series. ("x86emul:
New return code for unimplemented instruction")

//Petre

________________________
This email was scanned by Bitdefender
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel