On 2013-02-24 09:56, Avi Kivity wrote: > On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 11:57 PM, Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@xxxxxx> wrote: >> On 2013-02-23 22:45, Nadav Har'El wrote: >>> On Sat, Feb 23, 2013, Jan Kiszka wrote about "[PATCH] KVM: nVMX: Replace kvm_set_cr0 with vmx_set_cr0 in load_vmcs12_host_state": >>>> - kvm_set_cr0(vcpu, vmcs12->host_cr0); >>>> + vmx_set_cr0(vcpu, vmcs12->host_cr0); >>> >>> I don't remember now why I did this (and I'm not looking at the code), >>> but this you'll need to really test carefully, including >>> shadow-on-shadow mode (ept=0 in L0), to verify you're not missing any >>> important side-effect of kvm_set_cr0. >>> >>> Also, if I remember correctly, during nVMX's review, Avi Kivity asked >>> in several places that when I called vmx_set_cr0, I should instead call >>> kvm_set_cr0(), because it does some extra stuff and does some extra >>> checks. Hmm, see, see this: >>> http://markmail.org/message/hhidqyhbo2mrgxxc >>> >>> where Avi asked for the reverse patch you're attempting now. >> >> At least, kvm_set_cr0 can't be used as it assumes an otherwise >> consistent guest state and an explicitly initiated transition - which is >> naturally not the case while emulating a vmexit. > > We have the same problem in KVM_SET_SREGS. I don't see the problem. kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_set_sregs open-codes the state update, not applying any transition checks. Jan
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
