2017-10-17 1:16 GMT+08:00 Jim Mattson <[email protected]>: > Does it still make sense to advertise "Enable VM Functions" in the > secondary processor-based VM-execution controls if we don't actually > support any VM Functions?
Will do in v2. Thanks for your review. Regards, Wanpeng Li > > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 7:31 PM, Wanpeng Li <[email protected]> wrote: >> From: Wanpeng Li <[email protected]> >> >> EPT switching is advertised unconditionally since it is emulated, however, >> it can >> be treated as an extended feature for EPT, it should be not advertised if >> EPT itself >> is not exposed. This patch fixes it. >> >> Cc: Paolo Bonzini <[email protected]> >> Cc: Radim Krčmář <[email protected]> >> Signed-off-by: Wanpeng Li <[email protected]> >> --- >> arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c | 5 +++-- >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c >> index c460b0b..3644540 100644 >> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c >> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c >> @@ -2842,8 +2842,9 @@ static void nested_vmx_setup_ctls_msrs(struct vcpu_vmx >> *vmx) >> * Advertise EPTP switching unconditionally >> * since we emulate it >> */ >> - vmx->nested.nested_vmx_vmfunc_controls = >> - VMX_VMFUNC_EPTP_SWITCHING; >> + if (enable_ept) >> + vmx->nested.nested_vmx_vmfunc_controls = >> + VMX_VMFUNC_EPTP_SWITCHING; >> } >> >> /* >> -- >> 2.7.4 >>
