Does it still make sense to advertise "Enable VM Functions" in the secondary processor-based VM-execution controls if we don't actually support any VM Functions? On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 7:31 PM, Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > From: Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > EPT switching is advertised unconditionally since it is emulated, however, it can > be treated as an extended feature for EPT, it should be not advertised if EPT itself > is not exposed. This patch fixes it. > > Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@xxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@xxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c | 5 +++-- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c > index c460b0b..3644540 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c > @@ -2842,8 +2842,9 @@ static void nested_vmx_setup_ctls_msrs(struct vcpu_vmx *vmx) > * Advertise EPTP switching unconditionally > * since we emulate it > */ > - vmx->nested.nested_vmx_vmfunc_controls = > - VMX_VMFUNC_EPTP_SWITCHING; > + if (enable_ept) > + vmx->nested.nested_vmx_vmfunc_controls = > + VMX_VMFUNC_EPTP_SWITCHING; > } > > /* > -- > 2.7.4 >
