> Thanks for the report. However, already on Andreas' report on the day before
> yesterday I was heavily inclined to ask about details you certainly have
> figured out already. I find it odd that you leave to us all re-figuring out.
> In this case, for example: Is the specific value you set %eax to
On 17.04.2025 10:01, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 17/04/2025 8:14 am, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 17.04.2025 00:52, Fabian Specht wrote:
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> we discovered a bug in hvm64 x86 Xen. Using the attached xtf test we are
>>> able to trigger an assert in arch/x86/hvm/emulate.c:
>>>
>>>
>>> if (
On 17/04/2025 8:14 am, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 17.04.2025 00:52, Fabian Specht wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> we discovered a bug in hvm64 x86 Xen. Using the attached xtf test we are
>> able to trigger an assert in arch/x86/hvm/emulate.c:
>>
>>
>> if ( (hvmemul_ctxt->ctxt.regs->eflags & X86_EFLAGS_DF) &
On 17.04.2025 00:52, Fabian Specht wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> we discovered a bug in hvm64 x86 Xen. Using the attached xtf test we are
> able to trigger an assert in arch/x86/hvm/emulate.c:
>
>
> if ( (hvmemul_ctxt->ctxt.regs->eflags & X86_EFLAGS_DF) && (reps > 1) )
> {
> /*
>* x86_emu
Dear all,
we discovered a bug in hvm64 x86 Xen. Using the attached xtf test we are
able to trigger an assert in arch/x86/hvm/emulate.c:
if ( (hvmemul_ctxt->ctxt.regs->eflags & X86_EFLAGS_DF) && (reps > 1) )
{
/*
* x86_emulate() clips the repetition count to ensure we don't wrap
