On 09/10/2017 13:00, Wanpeng Li 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.
>
> Reviewed-by: Jim Mattson <jmattson@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Jim Mattson <jmattson@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> v1 -> v2:
> * reduce to just "enable_ept = 0"
>
> arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c | 7 ++-----
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
> index ab0f16e..dedff59 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
> @@ -6730,16 +6730,13 @@ static __init int hardware_setup(void)
> if (!cpu_has_vmx_ept() ||
> !cpu_has_vmx_ept_4levels() ||
> !cpu_has_vmx_ept_mt_wb() ||
> - !cpu_has_vmx_invept_global()) {
> + !cpu_has_vmx_invept_global())
> enable_ept = 0;
> - enable_unrestricted_guest = 0;
> - enable_ept_ad_bits = 0;
> - }
>
> 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())
>
Queued both, thanks.
Paolo
