Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> 于2023年3月10日周五 23:59写道：
>
> On Fri, Mar 10, 2023, Robert Hoo wrote:
> > Just rename, no functional changes intended.
> >
> > vmx_umip_emulated() comes from the ancient time when there was a
>
> No, vmx_umip_emulated() comes from the fact that "cpu_has_vmx_desc()" is
> inscrutable for the relevant code. There is zero reason to require that readers
> have a priori knowledge of why intercepting descriptor table access instructions
> is relevant to handing CR4.UMIP changes.
I think this is where comments can play its role.
>
> If it really bothers someone, we could do
Yeah, below also came to my mind, as one option.
>
> static inline bool cpu_has_vmx_desc(void)
> {
> return vmcs_config.cpu_based_2nd_exec_ctrl &
> SECONDARY_EXEC_DESC;
> }
>
> static inline bool vmx_umip_emulated(void)
> {
> return cpu_has_vmx_desc();
> }
>
> but I don't see the point since there is no usage for SECONDARY_EXEC_DESC outside
> of UMIP emulation.
SECONDARY_EXEC_DESC concerns more than UMIP does. UMIP emulation just leverages
part of it.
Also, vmx_umip_emulated() == true doesn't necessarily mean, as its
name indicates,
UMIP-being-emulated, e.g. Host has UMIP capability, then UMIP isn't
emulated though
vmx_umip_emulated() indicates true.
