On 05/19/2013 12:52 PM, Jun Nakajima wrote:
> From: Nadav Har'El <n...@il.ibm.com>
> 
> If we let L1 use EPT, we should probably also support the INVEPT instruction.
> 
> In our current nested EPT implementation, when L1 changes its EPT table for
> L2 (i.e., EPT12), L0 modifies the shadow EPT table (EPT02), and in the course

Hmm?

L0 can not always intercept L1's changes due to unsync shadow pages...

> of this modification already calls INVEPT. Therefore, when L1 calls INVEPT,
> we don't really need to do anything. In particular we *don't* need to call

So, i can not understand why we need not handle INVEPT.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to