Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: ... >> Is the purpose of returning 1 to make upper layer code to inject PML >> full VMEXIt to L1 in nested_ept_inject_page_fault? > > Yes, it triggers a fault >>> + >>> + gpa = vmcs_read64(GUEST_PHYSICAL_ADDRESS) & ~0xFFFull; >>> + >>> + page = nested_get_page(vcpu, vmcs12->pml_address); >>> + if (!page) >>> + return 0; >> >> If PML is enabled in L1, I think nested_get_page should never return a >> NULL PML page (unless L1 does something wrong)? Probably better to >> return 1 rather than 0, and handle error in nested_ept_inject_page_fault >> according to vmcs12->pml_address? > > This happens if the PML address is invalid (where on real hardware, the > write would just be "eaten") or MMIO (where we expect to diverge from Yes, that was my motivation. On real hardware, the hypervisor would still run except that the PML buffer is corrupt. Bandan > real hardware behavior). > >>> + >>> + pml_address = kmap(page); >>> + pml_address[vmcs12->guest_pml_index--] = gpa; >> >> This gpa is L2 guest's GPA. Do we also need to mark L1's GPA (which is >> related to L2 guest's GPA above) in to dirty-log? Or has this already >> been done? > > L1's PML contains L1 host physical addresses, i.e. L0 guest physical > addresses. This GPA comes from vmcs02 and hence it is L0's GPA. > > L0's HPA is marked by hardware through PML, as usual. If L0 has EPT A/D > but not PML, it can still provide emulated PML to L1, but L0's HPA will > be marked as dirty via write protection. > > Paolo
