On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 1:16 PM Jim Mattson <jmattson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 11:35 AM Jim Mattson <jmattson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 10:43 AM Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On 23/10/20 19:23, Jim Mattson wrote: > > > >> The information that we need is _not_ that provided by the advanced > > > >> VM-exit information (or by a page walk). If a page is neither writable > > > >> nor executable, the advanced information doesn't say if the injected #PF > > > >> should be a W=1 or a F=1 fault. We need the information in bits 0..2 of > > > >> the exit qualification for the final access, which however is not > > > >> available for the paging-structure access. > > > >> > > > > Are you planning to extend the emulator, then, to support all > > > > instructions? I'm not sure where you are going with this. > > > > > > I'm going to fix the bit 8=1 case, but for bit 8=0 there's not much that > > > you can do. In all likelihood the guest is buggy anyway. > > > > Did this drop off your radar? Are you still planning to fix the bit8=1 > > case to use advanced EPT exit qualification information? Or did I just > > miss it? > > Paolo, > If you're not working on this, do you mind if I ask Aaron to take a look at it? Ugh. The advanced EPT exit qualification contains nothing useful here, AFAICT. It only contains x86 page protection information--nothing about the access itself.
