Intel SDM doesn't describe whether the A bit will be set or not when CPU accesses a no present EPT page table entry? even this patch works for the current CPU, it's not good to make such an assumption. Should we revert it? Thanks! Liang > -----Original Message----- > From: kvm-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:kvm-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > On Behalf Of Bandan Das > Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2016 6:19 AM > To: kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Cc: pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx; guangrong.xiao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > kernellwp@xxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: [PATCH v2 1/5] mmu: extend the is_present check to 32 bits > > This is safe because this function is called on host controlled page table and > non-present/non-MMIO sptes never use bits 1..31. For the EPT case, this > ensures that cases where only the execute bit is set is marked valid. > > Signed-off-by: Bandan Das <bsd@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c index > def97b3..87b62dc 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c > @@ -304,7 +304,7 @@ static int is_nx(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > > static int is_shadow_present_pte(u64 pte) { > - return pte & PT_PRESENT_MASK && !is_mmio_spte(pte); > + return (pte & 0xFFFFFFFFull) && !is_mmio_spte(pte); > } > > static int is_large_pte(u64 pte) > -- > 2.5.5 > > -- > 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 -- 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
