On 14.09.2023 16:49, Andrew Cooper wrote: > On 14/09/2023 3:40 pm, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 13.09.2023 01:21, Andrew Cooper wrote: >>> We long ago fixed the emulator to not inject exceptions behind our back. >>> Therefore, assert that that a PV event (including interrupts, because that >>> would be buggy too) isn't pending, rather than skipping the #DB injection if >>> one is. >>> >>> On the other hand, the io_emul() stubs which use X86EMUL_DONE rather than >>> X86EMUL_OKAY may have pending breakpoints to inject after the IO access is >>> complete, not to mention a pending singlestep. >> If you look at the uses of X86EMUL_DONE you'll see that this error code is >> not intended to ever come back from the emulator. It's solely used to >> communicate between hooks and the core emulator. Therefore I think this >> part of the description and the added case label are wrong here. With them >> dropped again ... > > Oh. I see that now you've pointed it out, but it's far from clear. > > I'd suggest that we extend the the debug wrapper for x86_emulate() with > an assertion to this effect. It also has a knock-on effect in later > patches. > > With the DONE part dropped, this probably wants merging into patch 4. > Thoughts?
Not sure. Even then the patch here looks to still make sense on its own. I don't mind the folding, I guess, but for the moment the two R-b are only on the individual patches. Jan
