Paolo Bonzini <paolo.bonzini@xxxxxxxxx> wrote on 18/04/2013 12:59:48 AM: > 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. Ok, then I'll keep the code as is (not shadowing). > 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*... Good idea, I will change the comment to be more generic. Note I already sent v3 which targets all the other suggestions Gleb wrote. Let me know if I should wait for another review or just re-send v4 so you can apply the patches. Right now, the only pending change for v4 is generalizing the VM_INSTRUCTION_ERROR comment. -- 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
