On 23.11.2008, at 08:06, Muli Ben-Yehuda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 04:35:32PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
Alexander Graf wrote:
Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 04:14:37PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
+static int vmrun_interception(struct vcpu_svm *svm, struct
kvm_run *kvm_run)
+{
+ nsvm_printk("VMrun\n");
+ if (nested_svm_check_permissions(svm))
+ return 1;
+
+ svm->next_rip = kvm_rip_read(&svm->vcpu) + 3;
+ skip_emulated_instruction(&svm->vcpu);
+
+ if (nested_svm_do(svm, svm->vmcb->save.rax, 0,
+ NULL, nested_svm_vmrun))
+ return 1;
+
+ if (nested_svm_do(svm, svm->vmcb->control.msrpm_base_pa, 0,
+ NULL, nested_svm_vmrun_msrpm))
+ return 1;
nested_svm_vmrun returns 1 unconditionally, so we never call
nested_svm_vmrun_msrpm.
Wow the one thing you pointed out earlier. I must've missed to write
that on my TODO list.
I'll fix this right now :). Await v7 any second now.
Wow this is more tricky than I thought. I gotta go now, but I'll
look into it in more detail on Tuesday. I promise :-). For now
please just don't use the MSR check.
No problem. While you are looking at it, another question: In the
vmrun handler, we call kvm_mmu_reset_context() in the SPT case
only. In the vmexit handler, we call kvm_mmu_reset_context() for both
SPT and NPT. Why the discrepancy?
It should only be necessary on the SPT case, because with NPT our mmu
stays the same. We still only convert from host to l1 guest.
IIRC npt broke for me without that reset though and thus I put it
in :-/.
Alex
Cheers,
Muli
--
The First Workshop on I/O Virtualization (WIOV '08)
Dec 2008, San Diego, CA, http://www.usenix.org/wiov08/
<->
SYSTOR 2009---The Israeli Experimental Systems Conference
http://www.haifa.il.ibm.com/conferences/systor2009/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
