[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0ccb4fbd-5cb1-86e3-d4e5-117d6bc8fb10@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 17:29:02 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Luwei Kang <luwei.kang@...el.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Cc: rkrcmar@...hat.com, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
hpa@...or.com, x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Chao Peng <chao.p.peng@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [patch v2 3/8] KVM: x86: add Intel processor trace virtualization
mode
On 30/10/2017 23:05, Luwei Kang wrote:
> +#define VM_EXIT_PT_SUPPRESS_PIP 0x01000000
> +#define VM_EXIT_CLEAR_IA32_RTIT_CTL 0x02000000
>
> #define VM_EXIT_ALWAYSON_WITHOUT_TRUE_MSR 0x00036dff
>
> @@ -108,6 +112,8 @@
> #define VM_ENTRY_LOAD_IA32_PAT 0x00004000
> #define VM_ENTRY_LOAD_IA32_EFER 0x00008000
> #define VM_ENTRY_LOAD_BNDCFGS 0x00010000
> +#define VM_ENTRY_PT_SUPPRESS_PIP 0x00020000
> +#define VM_ENTRY_LOAD_IA32_RTIT_CTL 0x00040000
Please use PT_CONCEAL instead of PT_SUPPRESS_PIP, to better match the
SDM (for both vmexit and vmentry controls).
> + if (!enable_ept)
> + vmexit_control &= ~VM_EXIT_CLEAR_IA32_RTIT_CTL;
> +
Why is this (and the similar bit-clear operation in vmx_vmentry_control)
needed only for !enable_ept?
Shouldn't it be like
if (pt_mode == PT_MODE_SYSTEM) {
vmexit_control &= ~VM_EXIT_PT_SUPPRESS_PIP;
vmexit_control &= ~VM_EXIT_CLEAR_IA32_RTIT_CTL;
}
and
if (pt_mode == PT_MODE_SYSTEM) {
vmentry_control &= ~VM_ENTRY_PT_SUPPRESS_PIP;
vmentry_control &= ~VM_ENTRY_LOAD_IA32_RTIT_CTL;
}
Thanks,
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists