From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C8F0C432C0 for ; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 13:18:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FCF1222B5 for ; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 13:18:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727782AbfKSNSR (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Nov 2019 08:18:17 -0500 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:39940 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725904AbfKSNSR (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Nov 2019 08:18:17 -0500 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 210A3B03A; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 13:18:16 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86/Xen/32: simplify xen_iret_crit_fixup's ring check To: Jan Beulich , Boris Ostrovsky Cc: lkml , the arch/x86 maintainers , "xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org" References: From: =?UTF-8?B?SsO8cmdlbiBHcm/Dnw==?= Message-ID: Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2019 14:18:15 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.2.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 11.11.19 15:32, Jan Beulich wrote: > This can be had with two instead of six insns, by just checking the high > CS.RPL bit. > > Also adjust the comment - there would be no #GP in the mentioned cases, > as there's no segment limit violation or alike. Instead there'd be #PF, > but that one reports the target EIP of said branch, not the address of > the branch insn itself. > > Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich Reviewed-by: Juergen Gross Juergen