On 20/08/2018 13:32, Andrew Oates wrote:
> We should just remove the part that
> implies qemu should enforce it from my patch commit message.
Ok, will do.
Paolo
On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 6:06 AM Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
> On 17/08/2018 20:04, Andrew Oates wrote:
> >>> [1] this is an invalid configuration (in protected mode the L bit is
> >>> reserved and should be set to zero), but qemu doesn't enforce that.
> >
> > Is there a central place to do that sort of
On 17/08/2018 20:04, Andrew Oates wrote:
>>> [1] this is an invalid configuration (in protected mode the L bit is
>>> reserved and should be set to zero), but qemu doesn't enforce that.
>
> Is there a central place to do that sort of validation? We could do it
> in load_segment_ra, but that doesn'
On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 1:38 PM Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 16/08/2018 03:19, and...@andrewoates.com wrote:
> > From: Andrew Oates
> >
> > The current implementation has three bugs,
> > * segment limits are not enforced in protected mode if the L bit is set
> >in the target segment descriptor
On 16/08/2018 03:19, and...@andrewoates.com wrote:
> From: Andrew Oates
>
> The current implementation has three bugs,
> * segment limits are not enforced in protected mode if the L bit is set
>in the target segment descriptor[1]
> * segment limits are not enforced in compatability mode (lj
From: Andrew Oates
The current implementation has three bugs,
* segment limits are not enforced in protected mode if the L bit is set
in the target segment descriptor[1]
* segment limits are not enforced in compatability mode (ljmp to 32-bit
code segment in long mode)
* #GP(new_cs) is ge
