[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALMp9eQ+XO3ih_WOi0c6pDeeozRYHAOHJTsBksXdK-eOw9Tpag@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 10:16:21 -0700
From: Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>
To: Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kvm list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@...mail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] KVM: VMX: Don't advertise EPT switching if EPT itself
is not exposed
Does it still make sense to advertise "Enable VM Functions" in the
secondary processor-based VM-execution controls if we don't actually
support any VM Functions?
On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 7:31 PM, Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com> wrote:
> From: Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@...mail.com>
>
> EPT switching is advertised unconditionally since it is emulated, however, it can
> be treated as an extended feature for EPT, it should be not advertised if EPT itself
> is not exposed. This patch fixes it.
>
> Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
> Cc: Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@...mail.com>
> ---
> arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c | 5 +++--
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
> index c460b0b..3644540 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
> @@ -2842,8 +2842,9 @@ static void nested_vmx_setup_ctls_msrs(struct vcpu_vmx *vmx)
> * Advertise EPTP switching unconditionally
> * since we emulate it
> */
> - vmx->nested.nested_vmx_vmfunc_controls =
> - VMX_VMFUNC_EPTP_SWITCHING;
> + if (enable_ept)
> + vmx->nested.nested_vmx_vmfunc_controls =
> + VMX_VMFUNC_EPTP_SWITCHING;
> }
>
> /*
> --
> 2.7.4
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists