[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8f9bb12a-fa10-8c2c-aee2-240c59c92758@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2020 21:38:39 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Cathy Avery <cavery@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org
Cc: vkuznets@...hat.com, wei.huang2@....com, mlevitsk@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] KVM: SVM: Use a separate vmcb for the nested L2
guest
On 13/11/20 18:58, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>> + svm->nested.vmcb02->save.cr4 = svm->vmcb01->save.cr4;
>
> I cannot understand this statement.
I wonder if it has something to do with
unsigned long old_cr4 = to_svm(vcpu)->vmcb->save.cr4;
whereas vmx.c has
unsigned long old_cr4 = vcpu->arch.cr4;
without this assignment, the old_cr4 would be taken from the last value
stored in the vmcb02, instead of the current value for the vCPU.
In general uses of svm->vmcb01 (in svm.c especially) needs to be audited
carefully.
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists