On 07/02/2012 03:32 AM, Mao, Junjie wrote:
>> > I think this means I can replace the code here with a check in
>> nested_vmx_run. Do I understand correctly?
>>
>> Correct, but the check already exists:
>> if (!vmx_control_verify(vmcs12->cpu_based_vm_exec_control,
>> nested_vmx_procbased_ctls_low,
>> nested_vmx_procbased_ctls_high) ||
>> !vmx_control_verify(vmcs12->secondary_vm_exec_control,
>> nested_vmx_secondary_ctls_low,
>> nested_vmx_secondary_ctls_high) ||
>> !vmx_control_verify(vmcs12->pin_based_vm_exec_control,
>> nested_vmx_pinbased_ctls_low, nested_vmx_pinbased_ctls_high)
>> ||
>> !vmx_control_verify(vmcs12->vm_exit_controls,
>> nested_vmx_exit_ctls_low, nested_vmx_exit_ctls_high) ||
>> !vmx_control_verify(vmcs12->vm_entry_controls,
>> nested_vmx_entry_ctls_low, nested_vmx_entry_ctls_high))
>> {
>> nested_vmx_failValid(vcpu,
>> VMXERR_ENTRY_INVALID_CONTROL_FIELD);
>> return 1;
>> }
>>
>> So all that is needed is to initializr nested_vmx_entry_ctls_high properly.
>
> nested_vmx_entry_ctls_high only contains
> SECONDARY_EXEC_VIRTUALIZE_APIC_ACCESSES at present, which means it should be
> safe to simply remove the code.
Yes, I misread the code as initializing it to what the cpu supports, but
it is correct as is. So just drop this check.
--
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
