Il 17/04/2013 18:03, Abel Gordon ha scritto: >> > Right, not a big deal if this is the only case when it happens. When we >> > discussed accessors vs sync_shadow_vmcs flag approach I said that flag >> > will work only if no vmcs12 fields are changed not as part of vmexit or >> > vmwrite emulations. This one is such a field unfortunately. Hope it is >> > the only one. > Yep, remember that. I answered that L0 should NOT change VMCS12 fields > if L1 is running and L1 didn't execute any vmlaunch, vmresume, vmwrite... > (any vmx instruction. Sorry if I wasn't clear). > nested_vmx_failValid is called ONLY when L1 executes vmx instructions > which L0 traps and emulate. > > So, can we keep this part of the code as is ? I think so. Not shadowing the field is just as good a solution as forcing the copy. Perhaps at the top of the field lists you can replace the comment about VM_INSTRUCTION_ERROR with one that is more generic, and mentions that fields that are changed as part of vmexit or vmwrite emulation must not be shadowed, or alternatively *insert explanation here*... Paolo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
