Message ID | 56A9F3B4.5070406@citrix.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
State | New, archived |
Headers | show |
>>> On 28.01.16 at 11:55, <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> wrote: > On 28/01/16 09:42, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 27.01.16 at 20:13, <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> wrote: >>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/svm/vmcb.c >>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/svm/vmcb.c >>> @@ -192,6 +192,7 @@ static int construct_vmcb(struct vcpu *v) >>> >>> vmcb->_exception_intercepts = >>> HVM_TRAP_MASK >>> + | (opt_hvm_fep ? (1U << TRAP_invalid_op) : 0) >>> | (1U << TRAP_no_device); >> This assumes a certain sequence of hypercalls by the tool stack >> (i.e. set-cpuid only after all vCPU-s got created, or else the >> intercept won't get enabled), which I think we should avoid. >> Instead I think you'd better call the new hook from >> hvm_vcpu_initialise(). > > Something like this (to be folded in) ? Yes. Jan
diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c index 7a15d49..be5ead0 100644 --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c @@ -2484,6 +2484,8 @@ int hvm_vcpu_initialise(struct vcpu *v) hvm_set_guest_tsc(v, 0); } + hvm_update_guest_vendor(v); + return 0; fail7: diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/svm/vmcb.c b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/svm/vmcb.c index be2dc32..9ea014f 100644 --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/svm/vmcb.c +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/svm/vmcb.c @@ -192,7 +192,6 @@ static int construct_vmcb(struct vcpu *v) vmcb->_exception_intercepts = HVM_TRAP_MASK - | (opt_hvm_fep ? (1U << TRAP_invalid_op) : 0) | (1U << TRAP_no_device); if ( paging_mode_hap(v->domain) ) diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmcs.c b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmcs.c index a12813a..5bc3c74 100644 --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmcs.c +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmcs.c @@ -1237,7 +1237,6 @@ static int construct_vmcs(struct vcpu *v) v->arch.hvm_vmx.exception_bitmap = HVM_TRAP_MASK | (paging_mode_hap(d) ? 0 : (1U << TRAP_page_fault)) - | (opt_hvm_fep ? (1U << TRAP_invalid_op) : 0) | (1U << TRAP_no_device); vmx_update_exception_bitmap(v);