On Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 01:47:07PM +0800, Binbin Wu wrote: >> > + try_invvpid(INVVPID_ADDR, 0xffff, NONCANONICAL); >> shouldn't we use a kernel address here? e.g., vaddr. otherwise, we >> cannot tell if there is an error in KVM's emulation because in this >> test, LAM is enabled only for kernel address while INVVPID_ADDR is a >> userspace address. > >INVVPID_ADDR is the invalidation type, not the address. >The address used here is NONCANONICAL, which is 0xaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaull and >is considered as kernel address. Yes. Sorry about this misunderstanding. Do you need the address to be canonical after masking metadata?
