On 03/11/2014 14:44, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>> You can just use the same scheme as your patch 88/102:
> Why is that? Why should I not use the upstream version?
Because it makes no sense to invalidate nested EPT page tables, if the
kernel cannot make nested EPT page tables in the first place.
I think that this "if" in your patch should always trigger, thus making
your large patch equivalent to my small patch:
+ if (!(nested_vmx_secondary_ctls_high & SECONDARY_EXEC_ENABLE_EPT) ||
+ !(nested_vmx_ept_caps & VMX_EPT_INVEPT_BIT)) {
+ kvm_queue_exception(vcpu, UD_VECTOR);
+ return 1;
+ }
... but without looking at the entire source of vmx.c in the relatively
old 3.2 kernel, I'd rather play it safe and avoid introducing bugs in case
the above turns out not to be true.
Paolo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html