On Fri, Feb 04, 2022, David Matlack wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 04, 2022 at 06:56:57AM -0500, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > The role.base.smm flag is always zero, do not bother copying it over
> > from vcpu->arch.root_mmu.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Reviewed-by: David Matlack <dmatlack@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> > ---
> > arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c | 3 ---
> > 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> > index 9424ae90f1ef..b0065ae3cea8 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> > @@ -4881,9 +4881,6 @@ kvm_calc_shadow_ept_root_page_role(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, bool accessed_dirty,
> > {
> > union kvm_mmu_role role = {0};
> >
> > - /* SMM flag is inherited from root_mmu */
> > - role.base.smm = vcpu->arch.root_mmu.mmu_role.base.smm;
>
> nit: Retaining a comment here and/or warning here would be useful.
>
> /* EPT is not allowed in SMM */
EPT _is_ allowed in SMM, KVM just doesn't support it. Specifically, KVM doesn't
emulate Parallel SMM, a.k.a. Dual-Monitor Treatment of SMIs. Probably worth
calling that out in the changelog. If there's a WARN, then we don't really need
a comment as blame will get someone to the "why" if they're really curious, and
most people probably would only be confused about parallel SMM comments.
> WARN_ONCE_ONCE(vcpu->arch.root_mmu.mmu_role.base.smm);
+1 to a WARN, if only to provide a paper trail for git blame. Finding when
something is purely deleted is painful.
>
> (Although I imagine it would just get removed later in the series.)
>
> > -
> > role.base.level = level;
> > role.base.has_4_byte_gpte = false;
> > role.base.direct = false;
> > --
> > 2.31.1
> >
> >
