On 05/19/2013 12:52 PM, Jun Nakajima wrote: > From: Nadav Har'El <nyh@xxxxxxxxxx> > > If we let L1 use EPT, we should probably also support the INVEPT instruction. > > In our current nested EPT implementation, when L1 changes its EPT table for > L2 (i.e., EPT12), L0 modifies the shadow EPT table (EPT02), and in the course Hmm? L0 can not always intercept L1's changes due to unsync shadow pages... > of this modification already calls INVEPT. Therefore, when L1 calls INVEPT, > we don't really need to do anything. In particular we *don't* need to call So, i can not understand why we need not handle INVEPT. -- 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
