[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <defae6b9-f9d7-7702-b7ad-25b8784c1702@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 11:55:53 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Haozhong Zhang <haozhong.zhang@...el.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Cc: rkrcmar@...hat.com, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Gleb Natapov <gleb@...nel.org>,
Boris Petkov <bp@...e.de>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi.kleen@...el.com>,
Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] KVM: VMX: validate individual bits of guest
MSR_IA32_FEATURE_CONTROL
On 16/06/2016 08:05, Haozhong Zhang wrote:
> + /*
> + * Only bits masked by msr_ia32_feature_control_valid_bits can be set in
> + * msr_ia32_feature_control.
> + *
> + * msr_ia32_feature_control_valid_bits should be modified by
> + * feature_control_valid_bits_add/del(), and only bits masked by
> + * FEATURE_CONTROL_MAX_VALID_BITS can be modified.
> + */
> u64 msr_ia32_feature_control;
> + u64 msr_ia32_feature_control_valid_bits;
I noticed that the fw_cfg patch used an uint32_t. It probably should
use uint64_t; what you did here is correct.
Paolo
> };
Powered by blists - more mailing lists