On 11/10/2011 12:01 PM, Nadav Har'El wrote:
> If we let L1 use EPT, we should probably also support the INVEPT instruction.
>
> + case VMX_EPT_EXTENT_CONTEXT:
> + if (!(nested_vmx_ept_caps & VMX_EPT_EXTENT_CONTEXT_BIT))
> + nested_vmx_failValid(vcpu,
> + VMXERR_INVALID_OPERAND_TO_INVEPT_INVVPID);
> + else {
> + /*
> + * We efficiently handle the common case, of L1
> + * invalidating the last eptp it used to run L2.
> + * TODO: Instead of saving one last_eptp02, look up
> + * operand.eptp in the shadow EPT table cache, to
> + * find its shadow. Then last_eptp02 won't be needed.
> + */
> + struct vmcs12 *vmcs12 = get_vmcs12(vcpu);
> + struct vcpu_vmx *vmx = to_vmx(vcpu);
> + if (vmcs12 && nested_cpu_has_ept(vmcs12) &&
> + (vmcs12->ept_pointer == operand.eptp) &&
> + vmx->nested.last_eptp02)
> + ept_sync_context(vmx->nested.last_eptp02);
> + else
> + ept_sync_global();
Are either of these needed? Won't a write to a shadowed EPT table cause
them anyway?
> + nested_vmx_succeed(vcpu);
> + }
> + break;
> + case VMX_EPT_EXTENT_INDIVIDUAL_ADDR:
> + if (!(nested_vmx_ept_caps & VMX_EPT_EXTENT_INDIVIDUAL_BIT))
> + nested_vmx_failValid(vcpu,
> + VMXERR_INVALID_OPERAND_TO_INVEPT_INVVPID);
> + else {
> + struct vmcs12 *vmcs12 = get_vmcs12(vcpu);
> + struct vcpu_vmx *vmx = to_vmx(vcpu);
> + if (vmcs12 && nested_cpu_has_ept(vmcs12) &&
> + (vmcs12->ept_pointer == operand.eptp) &&
> + vmx->nested.last_eptp02)
> + ept_sync_individual_addr(
> + vmx->nested.last_eptp02, operand.gpa);
Same here.
> + else
> + ept_sync_global();
> + nested_vmx_succeed(vcpu);
> + }
> + break;
> + default:
> + nested_vmx_failValid(vcpu,
> + VMXERR_INVALID_OPERAND_TO_INVEPT_INVVPID);
> + }
> +
> + skip_emulated_instruction(vcpu);
> + return 1;
> +}
> +
>
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
