On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 10:49 AM KarimAllah Ahmed <[email protected]> wrote:


> @@ -7410,19 +7410,17 @@ static int handle_vmon(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>                  return kvm_skip_emulated_instruction(vcpu);
>          }

> -       page = kvm_vcpu_gpa_to_page(vcpu, vmptr);
> -       if (is_error_page(page)) {
> +       if (!kvm_vcpu_gpa_to_host_mapping(vcpu, vmptr, &mapping, true)) {
>                  nested_vmx_failInvalid(vcpu);
>                  return kvm_skip_emulated_instruction(vcpu);
>          }
> -       if (*(u32 *)kmap(page) != VMCS12_REVISION) {
> -               kunmap(page);
> -               kvm_release_page_clean(page);
> +       if (*(u32 *)mapping.kaddr != VMCS12_REVISION) {
> +               kvm_release_host_mapping(&mapping, false);
>                  nested_vmx_failInvalid(vcpu);
>                  return kvm_skip_emulated_instruction(vcpu);
>          }
> -       kunmap(page);
> -       kvm_release_page_clean(page);
> +
> +       kvm_release_host_mapping(&mapping, false);

Why go through this explicit mapping/release dance? Why not just:

uint32_t revision;
...
if (kvm_read_guest(vcpu->kvm, vmptr, &revision, sizeof(revision)) ||
     revision != VMCS12_REVISION) {
         nested_vmx_failInvalid(vcpu);
         return kvm_skip_emulated_instruction(vcpu);
}

Reply via email to