On 09/12/2016 09:35 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 05:38:49PM -0500, Tom Lendacky wrote: >> Update the KVM support to include the memory encryption mask when creating >> and using nested page tables. >> >> Signed-off-by: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@xxxxxxx> >> --- >> arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 3 ++- >> arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c | 8 ++++++-- >> arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c | 3 ++- >> arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 3 ++- >> 4 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h >> index 33ae3a4..c51c1cb 100644 >> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h >> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h >> @@ -1039,7 +1039,8 @@ void kvm_mmu_setup(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu); >> void kvm_mmu_init_vm(struct kvm *kvm); >> void kvm_mmu_uninit_vm(struct kvm *kvm); >> void kvm_mmu_set_mask_ptes(u64 user_mask, u64 accessed_mask, >> - u64 dirty_mask, u64 nx_mask, u64 x_mask, u64 p_mask); >> + u64 dirty_mask, u64 nx_mask, u64 x_mask, u64 p_mask, >> + u64 me_mask); > > Why do you need a separate mask? > > arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c::set_spte() ORs in shadow_present_mask > unconditionally. So you can simply do: > > > kvm_mmu_set_mask_ptes(PT_USER_MASK, PT_ACCESSED_MASK, > PT_DIRTY_MASK, PT64_NX_MASK, 0, > PT_PRESENT_MASK | sme_me_mask); > > and have this change much simpler. Just keeping in step with the way this is done for the other masks. They each have a specific meaning so I was trying not to combine them in case they may be used differently in the future. > >> void kvm_mmu_reset_context(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu); >> void kvm_mmu_slot_remove_write_access(struct kvm *kvm, >> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c >> index 3d4cc8cc..a7040f4 100644 >> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c >> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c >> @@ -122,7 +122,7 @@ module_param(dbg, bool, 0644); >> * PT32_LEVEL_BITS))) - 1)) >> >> #define PT64_PERM_MASK (PT_PRESENT_MASK | PT_WRITABLE_MASK | shadow_user_mask \ >> - | shadow_x_mask | shadow_nx_mask) >> + | shadow_x_mask | shadow_nx_mask | shadow_me_mask) > > This would be sme_me_mask, of course, like with the baremetal masks. > > Or am I missing something? Given the current patch, this would be shadow_me_mask since that value is set by the call to kvm_mmu_set_mask_ptes. Thanks, Tom > -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>