Re: [PATCH] deal with interrupt shadow state for emulated instruction

[Avi Kivity]

H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Avi Kivity wrote:
>   
> > The comment about repeating 'mov ss' in the manual has that wonderful
> > word in it, May.  That means we're perfectly allowed to ignore it and
> > just set the flag unconditionally.
> >
> >     
>
> Realistically, though, this should only be done for a limited number of
> sequential instructions.
>
>   

Why?  Do you see a guest filling all of memory with 'mov ss' and 
expecting to break out of it via an interrupt?

> > I doubt we'll ever see a repeated 'mov ss', once is more than enough.
> >     
>
> True enough, except maliciously.
>   

Why do we care?  The guest can only harm itself, and if it wants to 
disable interrupts, it would be a lot easier for it to run a plain 'cli'.

I guess it would be a problem if we emulated 'mov ss' for ordinary 
userspace or vm86 mode, but we don't.

--
I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this
signature is too narrow to contain.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/