[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] hvm: live migration between intel and amd


  • To: Jean Guyader <jean.guyader@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • From: Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 17:08:23 +0100
  • Delivery-date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 09:07:59 -0700
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
  • Thread-index: AcjNb7RL8qu5mDliEd2ZSAAWy6hiGQ==
  • Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] hvm: live migration between intel and amd

On 13/6/08 16:46, "Jean Guyader" <jean.guyader@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> +    /* Do we come from AMD processor ? */
> +    if ( data->msr_flags == -1ULL )
> +    {
> +        data->msr_flags = 0x7ULL;
> +
> +        data->ldtr_limit = 0xffffffff;
> +        data->ldtr_arbytes = 0xc00;
> +
> +        data->cs_arbytes = 0xc9b;
> +
> +        data->gs_limit = 0xffffffff;
> +        data->gs_arbytes = 0xc00;
> +
> +        data->tr_arbytes = 0x8b;
> +    }
> +

It's a bit rude to trample register state like this. Why do limits need to
be forced? The Intel manuals do not specify that any vm-entry checks are
applied to segment limits outside of vm86 mode.

 -- Keir



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


 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.