On Tue, 2021-09-14 at 10:20 +0200, Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito wrote:
>
> On 12/09/2021 12:42, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> > >
> > > - if (!nested_vmcb_valid_sregs(vcpu, &vmcb12->save) ||
> > > + if (!nested_vmcb_valid_sregs(vcpu, &svm->nested.save) ||
> > > !nested_vmcb_check_controls(vcpu, &svm->nested.ctl)) {
> > If you use a different struct for the copied fields, then it makes
> > sense IMHO to drop the 'control' parameter from nested_vmcb_check_controls,
> > and just use the svm->nested.save there directly.
> >
>
> Ok, what you say in patch 2 makes sense to me. I can create a new struct
> vmcb_save_area_cached, but I need to keep nested.ctl because 1) it is
> used also elsewhere, and different fields from the one checked here are
> read/set and 2) using another structure (or the same
Yes, keep nested.ctl, since vast majority of the fields are copied I think.
Best regards,
Maxim Levitsky
> vmcb_save_area_cached) in its place would just duplicate the same fields
> of nested.ctl, creating even more confusion and possible inconsistency.
>
> Let me know if you disagree.
>
> Thank you,
> Emanuele
>
