On Fri, Jul 15, 2022, Yu Zhang wrote:
> Although currently vmx_pf_exception_test can succeed, its
> success is actually because we are using identical mappings
> in the page tables and EB.PF is not set by L1. In practice,
> the #PFs shall be expected by L1, if it is using shadowing
> for L2.
I'm a bit lost. Is there an actual failure somewhere? AFAICT, this passes when
run as L1 or L2, with or without EPT enabled.
> So just set up the EPT, and clear the EB.PT, then L1 has the
> right to claim a failure if a #PF is encountered.
>
> Signed-off-by: Yu Zhang <yu.c.zhang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> x86/vmx_tests.c | 11 +++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/x86/vmx_tests.c b/x86/vmx_tests.c
> index 4d581e7..cc90611 100644
> --- a/x86/vmx_tests.c
> +++ b/x86/vmx_tests.c
> @@ -10639,6 +10639,17 @@ static void __vmx_pf_exception_test(invalidate_tlb_t inv_fn, void *data)
>
> static void vmx_pf_exception_test(void)
> {
> + u32 eb;
> +
> + if (setup_ept(false)) {
> + printf("EPT not supported.\n");
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + eb = vmcs_read(EXC_BITMAP);
> + eb &= ~(1 << PF_VECTOR);
> + vmcs_write(EXC_BITMAP, eb);
> +
> __vmx_pf_exception_test(NULL, NULL);
> }
>
> --
> 2.25.1
>
