If it were me, I'd apply De Morgan to that expression, but the logic looks fine. Reviewed-by: Jim Mattson <jmattson@xxxxxxxxxx> On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 7:35 PM, Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > From: Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > SDM mentioned: > > "If either the “unrestricted guest” VM-execution control or the “mode-based > execute control for EPT” VM- execution control is 1, the “enable EPT” > VM-execution control must also be 1." > > However, we can still observe unrestricted_guest is Y after inserting the kvm-intel.ko > w/ ept=N. It depends on later starts a guest in order that the function > vmx_compute_secondary_exec_control() can be executed, then both the module parameter > and exec control fields will be amended. > > This patch fixes it by amending module parameter immediately during vmcs data setup. > > Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@xxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@xxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c > index 244e366..3e664ca 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c > @@ -6737,7 +6737,7 @@ static __init int hardware_setup(void) > if (!cpu_has_vmx_ept_ad_bits() || !enable_ept) > enable_ept_ad_bits = 0; > > - if (!cpu_has_vmx_unrestricted_guest()) > + if (!cpu_has_vmx_unrestricted_guest() || !enable_ept) > enable_unrestricted_guest = 0; > > if (!cpu_has_vmx_flexpriority()) > -- > 2.7.4 >
