On 02/11/18 13:45, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 02.11.18 at 14:08, <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 09:03:18AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>> On 19.10.18 at 16:28, <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> @@ -548,10 +550,14 @@ ENTRY(ret_from_intr) >>>> GET_CURRENT(bx) >>>> testb $3, UREGS_cs(%rsp) >>>> jz restore_all_xen >>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_PV >>>> movq VCPU_domain(%rbx), %rax >>>> cmpb $0, DOMAIN_is_32bit_pv(%rax) >>>> je test_all_events >>>> jmp compat_test_all_events >>>> +#else >>>> + BUG >>>> +#endif >>> Hmm, not sure here (and elsewhere): Another option is to >>> streamline execution by replacing the conditional branch with an >>> unconditional one in the !PV case. Andrew, do you have any >>> thoughts either way? >> My original thought was to catch potential issues in Xen code which >> messes up with the permission level. Using unconditional jump is fine >> by me, too. But in that case I will seek to at least add an assertion >> for debug build. > Assertion additions are definitely fine with me.
Yeah - I'd also err on the side of an assertion and an unconditional jump. ~Andrew _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
