On 10/8/20 6:23 AM, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/nested.c b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/nested.c
index 0a06e62010d8c..7293ba23b3cbc 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/nested.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/nested.c
@@ -436,6 +436,9 @@ int enter_svm_guest_mode(struct vcpu_svm *svm, u64 vmcb_gpa,
On Thu, 2020-10-08 at 09:52 -0400, Cathy Avery wrote:
> On 10/8/20 9:11 AM, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> > On Thu, 2020-10-08 at 08:46 -0400, Cathy Avery wrote:
> > > On 10/8/20 6:54 AM, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2020-10-08 at 13:39 +0300, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, 2020-10-08 a
On 10/8/20 9:11 AM, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
On Thu, 2020-10-08 at 08:46 -0400, Cathy Avery wrote:
On 10/8/20 6:54 AM, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
On Thu, 2020-10-08 at 13:39 +0300, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
On Thu, 2020-10-08 at 13:23 +0300, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
On Thu, 2020-10-08 at 07:52 +0200, Paolo
On Thu, 2020-10-08 at 08:46 -0400, Cathy Avery wrote:
> On 10/8/20 6:54 AM, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> > On Thu, 2020-10-08 at 13:39 +0300, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2020-10-08 at 13:23 +0300, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2020-10-08 at 07:52 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > > > > On
On 10/8/20 6:54 AM, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
On Thu, 2020-10-08 at 13:39 +0300, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
On Thu, 2020-10-08 at 13:23 +0300, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
On Thu, 2020-10-08 at 07:52 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 08/10/20 00:14, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
+ if (svm->vmcb01->control.asid ==
On Thu, 2020-10-08 at 13:39 +0300, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> On Thu, 2020-10-08 at 13:23 +0300, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> > On Thu, 2020-10-08 at 07:52 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > > On 08/10/20 00:14, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> > > > > + if (svm->vmcb01->control.asid == 0)
> > > > > +
On Thu, 2020-10-08 at 13:23 +0300, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> On Thu, 2020-10-08 at 07:52 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > On 08/10/20 00:14, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> > > > + if (svm->vmcb01->control.asid == 0)
> > > > + svm->vmcb01->control.asid =
> > > > svm->nested.vmcb02->contro
On Thu, 2020-10-08 at 07:52 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 08/10/20 00:14, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> > > + if (svm->vmcb01->control.asid == 0)
> > > + svm->vmcb01->control.asid = svm->nested.vmcb02->control.asid;
> >
> > I think that the above should be done always. The asid field is curre
On 08/10/20 00:14, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
>>
>> +if (svm->vmcb01->control.asid == 0)
>> +svm->vmcb01->control.asid = svm->nested.vmcb02->control.asid;
>
> I think that the above should be done always. The asid field is currently host
> controlled only (that is L2 value is ignored, s
On Thu, 2020-09-17 at 15:23 -0400, Cathy Avery wrote:
> svm->vmcb will now point to either a separate vmcb L1 ( not nested ) or L2
> vmcb ( nested ).
>
> Issues:
>
> 1) There is some wholesale copying of vmcb.save and vmcb.contol
>areas which will need to be refined.
>
> 2) There is a worka
On Thu, 2020-09-17 at 15:23 -0400, Cathy Avery wrote:
> svm->vmcb will now point to either a separate vmcb L1 ( not nested ) or L2
> vmcb ( nested ).
>
> Issues:
>
> 1) There is some wholesale copying of vmcb.save and vmcb.contol
>areas which will need to be refined.
>
> 2) There is a worka
On 17/09/20 21:23, Cathy Avery wrote:
>
> 2) There is a workaround in nested_svm_vmexit() where
>
>if (svm->vmcb01->control.asid == 0)
>svm->vmcb01->control.asid = svm->nested.vmcb02->control.asid;
>
>This was done as a result of the kvm selftest 'state_test'. In that
>test s
On 21/09/20 16:07, Cathy Avery wrote:
>>> - if (npt_enabled)
>>> - svm->vmcb->save.cr3 = hsave->save.cr3;
>>> + if (!npt_enabled)
>>> + svm->vmcb01->save.cr3 = kvm_read_cr3(&svm->vcpu);
>> Does this mean the original code is missing the following?
>>
>> else
>>
On 9/18/20 5:11 PM, Wei Huang wrote:
On 09/17 03:23, Cathy Avery wrote:
svm->vmcb will now point to either a separate vmcb L1 ( not nested ) or L2 vmcb
( nested ).
Issues:
1) There is some wholesale copying of vmcb.save and vmcb.contol
areas which will need to be refined.
2) There is a w
On 09/17 03:23, Cathy Avery wrote:
> svm->vmcb will now point to either a separate vmcb L1 ( not nested ) or L2
> vmcb ( nested ).
>
> Issues:
>
> 1) There is some wholesale copying of vmcb.save and vmcb.contol
>areas which will need to be refined.
>
> 2) There is a workaround in nested_svm
r.kernel.org; k...@vger.kernel.org;
> >> pbonz...@redhat.com
> >> Cc: vkuzn...@redhat.com; Huang2, Wei
> >> Subject: [PATCH] KVM: SVM: Use a separate vmcb for the nested L2
> >> guest
> >>
> >> svm->vmcb will now point to either a separate vmcb L1
vmcb. Few comments below.
-Original Message-
From: Cathy Avery
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2020 2:23 PM
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; k...@vger.kernel.org; pbonz...@redhat.com
Cc: vkuzn...@redhat.com; Huang2, Wei
Subject: [PATCH] KVM: SVM: Use a separate vmcb for the nested L2 guest
nal Message-
> From: Cathy Avery
> Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2020 2:23 PM
> To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; k...@vger.kernel.org; pbonz...@redhat.com
> Cc: vkuzn...@redhat.com; Huang2, Wei
> Subject: [PATCH] KVM: SVM: Use a separate vmcb for the nested L2 guest
>
>
svm->vmcb will now point to either a separate vmcb L1 ( not nested ) or L2 vmcb
( nested ).
Issues:
1) There is some wholesale copying of vmcb.save and vmcb.contol
areas which will need to be refined.
2) There is a workaround in nested_svm_vmexit() where
if (svm->vmcb01->control.asid ==
19 matches
Mail list logo
