On Sat, Feb 5, 2022 at 6:49 AM Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 2/4/22 22:57, David Matlack wrote: > >> + vcpu->arch.root_mmu.cpu_role.base.level = 0; > >> + vcpu->arch.guest_mmu.cpu_role.base.level = 0; > >> + vcpu->arch.nested_mmu.cpu_role.base.level = 0; > > Will cpu_role.base.level already be 0 if CR0.PG=0 && !tdp_enabled? i.e. > > setting cpu_role.base.level to 0 might not have the desired effect. > > > > It might not matter in practice since the shadow_mmu_init_context() and > > kvm_calc_mmu_role_common() check both the mmu_role and cpu_role, but does > > make this reset code confusing. > > > > Good point. The (still unrealized) purpose of this series is to be able > to check mmu_role only, so for now I'll just keep the valid bit in the > ext part of the cpu_role. The mmu_role's level however is never zero, > so I can already use the level when I remove the ext part from the mmu_role. Agreed. > > I'll remove the valid bit of the ext part only after the cpu_role check > is removed, because then it can trivially go. Ok sounds good. > > Paolo >
