On 9/5/2026 7:07 AM, Jim Mattson wrote:
On Mon, Aug 24, 2026 at 5:40 AM Tina Zhang <[email protected]> wrote:
+
+ vmcb->control.exit_info_1 = exit_info_1;
+ vmcb->control.exit_info_2 = 0;
+}
Can this entire function be integrated into the existing switch
statement in svm_check_intercept()?
Yes, that makes sense.
And, if !guest_cpu_cap_has(vcpu, X86_FEATURE_DECODEASSISTS), should
exit_info_1 be cleared for these intercepts?
My reading is that exit_info_1 is undefined for these intercepts when
DecodeAssists is not exposed, and KVM previously left it untouched. I
would therefore prefer to preserve the existing behavior and update
exit_info_1 only when DecodeAssists is exposed. That said, do you see
any reason why KVM should explicitly clear exit_info_1 when
guest_cpu_cap_has(vcpu, X86_FEATURE_DECODEASSISTS) returns false?
Thanks,
Tina
