On 13/07/2016 17:47, Bandan Das wrote: >>> I wanted to keep it the former way because "PT_PRESENT_MASK is equal to >>> VMX_EPT_READABLE_MASK" >>> is an assumption all throughout. I wanted to use this section to catch >>> mismatches. >> >> I think there's no such assumption anymore, actually. Can you double >> check? If there are any, that's where the BUILD_BUG_ON should be. > > What I meant is how they are the same bit. is_shadow_present_pte() is > probably one > and another one is link_shadow_page() which already has a BUILD_BUG_ON().
You're right about link_shadow_page()! We probably should change the PT_PRESENT_MASK to shadow_present_mask there (and then readability in the EPT execonly case is still provided by shadow_user_mask). For is_shadow_present_pte() you have removed it in patch 1 though. Paolo
