mbox series

[for-4.13,0/2] x86/hvm: Multiple corrections to task switch handling

Message ID 20191121221551.1175-1-andrew.cooper3@citrix.com (mailing list archive)
Headers show
Series x86/hvm: Multiple corrections to task switch handling | expand

Message

Andrew Cooper Nov. 21, 2019, 10:15 p.m. UTC
These patches want backporting due to the severity of patch 2.  They should
therefore be considered for 4.13 at this point.

Andrew Cooper (2):
  x86/vtx: Fix fault semantics for early task switch failures
  x86/svm: Write the correct %eip into the outgoing task

 xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c                |  4 +--
 xen/arch/x86/hvm/svm/emulate.c        | 55 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 xen/arch/x86/hvm/svm/svm.c            | 46 ++++++++++++++++++++++-------
 xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c            |  4 +--
 xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/hvm.h         |  2 +-
 xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/svm/emulate.h |  1 +
 6 files changed, 97 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)

Comments

Roger Pau Monné Nov. 22, 2019, 10:23 a.m. UTC | #1
On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 10:15:49PM +0000, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> These patches want backporting due to the severity of patch 2.  They should
> therefore be considered for 4.13 at this point.

Is there a matching XTF test to exercise this functionality?

Thanks, Roger.
Andrew Cooper Nov. 22, 2019, 10:25 a.m. UTC | #2
On 22/11/2019 10:23, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 10:15:49PM +0000, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> These patches want backporting due to the severity of patch 2.  They should
>> therefore be considered for 4.13 at this point.
> Is there a matching XTF test to exercise this functionality?

Modification of an existing one to begin with (which is how I spotted
the problems).

I don't have a CI-ready test yet.

~Andrew