On 7/18/2018 7:59 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 09/07/2018 11:02, Tianyu Lan wrote:
>> +static void check_ept_pointer(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 eptp)
>> +{
>> + struct kvm *kvm = vcpu->kvm;
>> + u64 tmp_eptp = INVALID_PAGE;
>> + int i;
>> +
>> + if (!kvm_x86_ops->tlb_remote_flush)
>> + return;
>> +
>> + spin_lock(&to_kvm_vmx(kvm)->ept_pointer_lock);
>> + to_vmx(vcpu)->ept_pointer = eptp;
>> +
>> + kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, vcpu, kvm) {
>> + if (!VALID_PAGE(tmp_eptp)) {
>> + tmp_eptp = to_vmx(vcpu)->ept_pointer;
>> + } else if (tmp_eptp != to_vmx(vcpu)->ept_pointer) {
>> + to_kvm_vmx(kvm)->ept_pointers_match = false;
>> + spin_unlock(&to_kvm_vmx(kvm)->ept_pointer_lock);
>> + return;
>> + }
>> + }
>> +
>> + to_kvm_vmx(kvm)->ept_pointers_match = true;
>> + spin_unlock(&to_kvm_vmx(kvm)->ept_pointer_lock);
>> +}
>> +
>
> Is there any reason to do the check here, rather than the first time the
> TLB flush is invoked? You could:
>
> - have a tristate (true, false, check) value for ept_pointers_match
>
> - reset it to "check" in vmx_set_cr3
>
> - set it to either true or false in tlb_remote_flush if it is check, and
> do the hypercall if it is true.
>
Thanks for your suggestion. Will update.
> Paolo
>
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
de...@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
