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

Re: [Xen-devel] Doamin crash when trying to install disk encryption (PointSec) on Windows HVM


  • To: Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • From: Tom Rotenberg <tom.rotenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 17:08:35 +0300
  • Cc: Tim Deegan <Tim.Deegan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Delivery-date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 07:09:04 -0700
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=FJRFzslts/Uj9XrnpCbj2B3qiT270xU019Mruj/0eJtmJQSmwH8otzIB5/8s2Swstq UBuRfs7W40dKDbC2vYsRfKzZelfz6Bksw5Bugjp+zXczNarVsY3/QStG0uKq/uT/zytP N9HeVljwb0mNrIk8ggCZyiDJ8i/VXrDS5mF9w=
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>

About the TR, i have re-checked it, and it seems like the TR value is still 0x58, althoug the LTR operation put 0x50 into it. Since, i looked at the LTR code you sent me, and it seems ok, i tend to suspect, that there was some kind of (hardware) task switch, which changed the TR value without me knowing, is it possible? because otherwise, i can't really explain why the TR value is different than what was loaded from the LTR operation...

BTW - how can i track what was the previous VMEXIT before this last VMENTRY which caused the exception? i think, that probably the last VMEXIT caused the "change" to vm86 mode, and this is waht causes the problem...

Tom

2009/4/23 Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On 23/04/2009 12:44, "Tom Rotenberg" <tom.rotenberg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> However, from the VMCS dump, i saw data, which doesn't seem compatible with
> this, as the LDTR sellector is indeed 0, but has attributes and limit
> different from zero (although it should have been totaly disabled, by the
> LLDT, no?).

The 'unused' flag in the attributes word is set (bit 16) so LDTR is okay.

> And more important, the TR selector is 0x58, although from the LTR, it was
> supposed to be 0x50, no?

If 0x50 was loaded then the selector should certainly be 0x50.

 -- Keir

> (of-course it's possible that there were other instructions who changed it
> back, however, i am wondering if there is a problem here).


_______________________________________________
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®.