On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 03:26:18PM -0700, Nakajima, Jun wrote: > On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:05 AM, Xiao Guangrong > <xiaoguangrong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 05/21/2013 05:01 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote: > >> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 04:30:13PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote: > >>>>> @@ -772,6 +810,7 @@ static gpa_t FNAME(gva_to_gpa_nested)(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, gva_t vaddr, > >>>>> > >>>>> return gpa; > >>>>> } > >>>>> +#endif > >>>> > >>>> Strange! > >>>> > >>>> Why does nested ept not need these functions? How to emulate the instruction faulted on L2? > >>> > >>> Sorry, i misunderstood it. Have found the reason out. > >>> > >> You can write it down here for future reviewers :) > > > > Okay. > > > > The functions used to translate L2's gva to L1's gpa are paging32_gva_to_gpa_nested > > and paging64_gva_to_gpa_nested which are created by PTTYPE == 32 and PTTYPE == 64. > > > > > > Back to your comments on PT_MAX_FULL_LEVELS: > > + #ifdef CONFIG_X86_64 > > + #define PT_MAX_FULL_LEVELS 4 > > + #define CMPXCHG cmpxchg > > + #else > > + #define CMPXCHG cmpxchg64 > > + #define PT_MAX_FULL_LEVELS 2 > I don't think we need to support nEPT on 32-bit hosts. So, I plan to > remove such code. What do you think? > Why shouldn't we support nEPT on 32-bit hosts? -- Gleb. -- 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
