On 20/12/2016 04:36, Junaid Shahid wrote: > > On Saturday, December 17, 2016 09:19:29 AM Paolo Bonzini wrote: >>> >>> Yes, I guess we can do that since if the restored PTE doesn’t satisfy the >>> access we are just going to get another fault anyway. >> >> Please do it as a follow up, since it complicates the logic a bit. >> >> .... >>> >>> Ok. So you mean that vmx.c should just pass VMX_EPT_RWX_MASK here and >>> VMX_EPT_MISCONFIG_WX_VALUE for the mmio mask and then mmu.c should add in >>> SPTE_SPECIAL_MASK before storing these values in shadow_acc_track_mask and >>> shadow_mmio_mask? >> >> I think I agree, but we can do this too as a separate follow-up cleanup patch. >> > > Sure. I’ll defer these to follow-up patches. What about the change to move the pgtable walk inside the retry loop in fast_page_fault? Should I update the current patch-set to do that or should we defer that to a later patch as well? Please separate everything. Paolo -- 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
