Re: [PATCH 3/5] mmu: don't set the present bit unconditionally

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 





On 06/29/2016 04:18 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:


On 29/06/2016 05:17, Xiao Guangrong wrote:

+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
@@ -2516,13 +2516,17 @@ static int set_spte(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64
*sptep,
               gfn_t gfn, kvm_pfn_t pfn, bool speculative,
               bool can_unsync, bool host_writable)
   {
-    u64 spte;
+    u64 spte = 0;
       int ret = 0;
+    struct kvm_mmu *context = &vcpu->arch.mmu;
+    bool execonly = !(context->guest_rsvd_check.bad_mt_xwr &
+              (1ull << VMX_EPT_EXECUTABLE_MASK));

Could we introduce a new field, say execonly, to "struct kvm_mmu"?
That would make the code be more clearer.

Given how execonly is used, let's add shadow_present_mask instead.

Yup, it is better.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



[Index of Archives]     [KVM ARM]     [KVM ia64]     [KVM ppc]     [Virtualization Tools]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Questions]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]
  Powered by Linux