On Tue, 2021-09-14 at 12:02 +0300, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> 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.
But actually that you mention it, I'll say why not to create vmcb_control_area_cached
as well indeed and change the type of svm->nested.save to it. (in a separate patch)
I see what you mean that we modify it a bit (but we shoudn't to be honest) and such, but
all of this can be fixed.
The advantage of having vmcb_control_area_cached is that it becomes impossible to use
by mistake a non copied field from the guest.
It would also emphasize that this stuff came from the guest and should be treated as
a toxic waste.
Note again that this should be done if we agree as a separate patch.
>
> 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
> >
