On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 02:16:00PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 6/14/22 06:55, Anirudh Rayabharam wrote: > > > That said, I think a better implementation of this patch is to just add > > > a version of evmcs_sanitize_exec_ctrls that takes a struct > > > nested_vmx_msrs *, and call it at the end of nested_vmx_setup_ctl_msrs like > > > > > > evmcs_sanitize_nested_vmx_vsrs(msrs); > > Sanitize at the end might not work because I see some cases in > > nested_vmx_setup_ctls_msrs() where we want to expose some things to L1 > > even though the hardware doesn't support it. > > > > Yes, but these will never include eVMCS-unsupported features. How are you so sure? For example, SECONDARY_EXEC_SHADOW_VMCS is unsupported in eVMCS but in nested_vmx_setup_ctls_msrs() we do: 6675 /* 6676 * We can emulate "VMCS shadowing," even if the hardware 6677 * doesn't support it. 6678 */ 6679 msrs->secondary_ctls_high |= 6680 SECONDARY_EXEC_SHADOW_VMCS; If we sanitize this out it might cause some regression right? Thanks! Anirudh. > > Paolo
