On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 03:26:18PM -0700, Nakajima, Jun wrote:
> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:05 AM, Xiao Guangrong
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 05/21/2013 05:01 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 04:30:13PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> >>>>> @@ -772,6 +810,7 @@ static gpa_t FNAME(gva_to_gpa_nested)(struct
> >>>>> kvm_vcpu *vcpu, gva_t vaddr,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> return gpa;
> >>>>> }
> >>>>> +#endif
> >>>>
> >>>> Strange!
> >>>>
> >>>> Why does nested ept not need these functions? How to emulate the
> >>>> instruction faulted on L2?
> >>>
> >>> Sorry, i misunderstood it. Have found the reason out.
> >>>
> >> You can write it down here for future reviewers :)
> >
> > Okay.
> >
> > The functions used to translate L2's gva to L1's gpa are
> > paging32_gva_to_gpa_nested
> > and paging64_gva_to_gpa_nested which are created by PTTYPE == 32 and PTTYPE
> > == 64.
> >
> >
>
> Back to your comments on PT_MAX_FULL_LEVELS:
> > + #ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
> > + #define PT_MAX_FULL_LEVELS 4
> > + #define CMPXCHG cmpxchg
> > + #else
> > + #define CMPXCHG cmpxchg64
> > + #define PT_MAX_FULL_LEVELS 2
> I don't think we need to support nEPT on 32-bit hosts. So, I plan to
> remove such code. What do you think?
>
Why shouldn't we support nEPT on 32-bit hosts?
--
Gleb.
--
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
