On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 11:57 PM, Jan Kiszka <jan.kis...@web.de> wrote: > On 2013-02-23 22:45, Nadav Har'El wrote: >> On Sat, Feb 23, 2013, Jan Kiszka wrote about "[PATCH] KVM: nVMX: Replace >> kvm_set_cr0 with vmx_set_cr0 in load_vmcs12_host_state": >>> - kvm_set_cr0(vcpu, vmcs12->host_cr0); >>> + vmx_set_cr0(vcpu, vmcs12->host_cr0); >> >> I don't remember now why I did this (and I'm not looking at the code), >> but this you'll need to really test carefully, including >> shadow-on-shadow mode (ept=0 in L0), to verify you're not missing any >> important side-effect of kvm_set_cr0. >> >> Also, if I remember correctly, during nVMX's review, Avi Kivity asked >> in several places that when I called vmx_set_cr0, I should instead call >> kvm_set_cr0(), because it does some extra stuff and does some extra >> checks. Hmm, see, see this: >> http://markmail.org/message/hhidqyhbo2mrgxxc >> >> where Avi asked for the reverse patch you're attempting now. > > At least, kvm_set_cr0 can't be used as it assumes an otherwise > consistent guest state and an explicitly initiated transition - which is > naturally not the case while emulating a vmexit.
We have the same problem in KVM_SET_SREGS. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
