On 06/29/2016 04:18 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 29/06/2016 05:17, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
@@ -2516,13 +2516,17 @@ static int set_spte(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64
*sptep,
gfn_t gfn, kvm_pfn_t pfn, bool speculative,
bool can_unsync, bool host_writable)
{
- u64 spte;
+ u64 spte = 0;
int ret = 0;
+ struct kvm_mmu *context = &vcpu->arch.mmu;
+ bool execonly = !(context->guest_rsvd_check.bad_mt_xwr &
+ (1ull << VMX_EPT_EXECUTABLE_MASK));
Could we introduce a new field, say execonly, to "struct kvm_mmu"?
That would make the code be more clearer.
Given how execonly is used, let's add shadow_present_mask instead.
Yup, it is better.
