2016-07-05 18:50 GMT+08:00 Paolo Bonzini :
>
>
> On 05/07/2016 05:06, Wanpeng Li wrote:
>> 2016-06-29 4:49 GMT+08:00 Paolo Bonzini :
>> [...]
>>>
>>> I think another way to write it is "(pte & 0xull) &&
>>> !is_mmio_spte(pte)", since non-present/non-MMIO SPTEs never use bits
>>
>> I misunde
On 05/07/2016 05:06, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> 2016-06-29 4:49 GMT+08:00 Paolo Bonzini :
> [...]
>>
>> I think another way to write it is "(pte & 0xull) &&
>> !is_mmio_spte(pte)", since non-present/non-MMIO SPTEs never use bits
>
> I misunderstand it here, this will also treat -W- EPT SPTEs as
2016-06-29 4:49 GMT+08:00 Paolo Bonzini :
[...]
>
> I think another way to write it is "(pte & 0xull) &&
> !is_mmio_spte(pte)", since non-present/non-MMIO SPTEs never use bits
I misunderstand it here, this will also treat -W- EPT SPTEs as present, right?
Regards,
Wanpeng Li
On 06/29/2016 04:49 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 28/06/2016 22:37, Bandan Das wrote:
Paolo Bonzini writes:
On 28/06/2016 19:33, Bandan Das wrote:
static int is_shadow_present_pte(u64 pte)
{
- return pte & PT_PRESENT_MASK && !is_mmio_spte(pte);
+ return pte & (PT_PRESENT_MA
Paolo Bonzini writes:
> On 28/06/2016 22:37, Bandan Das wrote:
>> Paolo Bonzini writes:
>>
>>> On 28/06/2016 19:33, Bandan Das wrote:
static int is_shadow_present_pte(u64 pte)
{
- return pte & PT_PRESENT_MASK && !is_mmio_spte(pte);
+ return pte &
On 28/06/2016 22:37, Bandan Das wrote:
> Paolo Bonzini writes:
>
>> On 28/06/2016 19:33, Bandan Das wrote:
>>> static int is_shadow_present_pte(u64 pte)
>>> {
>>> - return pte & PT_PRESENT_MASK && !is_mmio_spte(pte);
>>> + return pte & (PT_PRESENT_MASK | shadow_x_m
Paolo Bonzini writes:
> On 28/06/2016 19:33, Bandan Das wrote:
>> static int is_shadow_present_pte(u64 pte)
>> {
>> - return pte & PT_PRESENT_MASK && !is_mmio_spte(pte);
>> + return pte & (PT_PRESENT_MASK | shadow_x_mask) &&
>> + !is_mmio_spte(
On 28/06/2016 19:33, Bandan Das wrote:
>>> >> static int is_shadow_present_pte(u64 pte)
>>> >> {
>>> >> -return pte & PT_PRESENT_MASK && !is_mmio_spte(pte);
>>> >> +return pte & (PT_PRESENT_MASK | shadow_x_mask) &&
>>> >> +!is_mmio_spte(pte);
>> >
>> > This shoul
Paolo Bonzini writes:
> On 28/06/2016 06:32, Bandan Das wrote:
>> This is safe because is_shadow_present_pte() is called
>> on host controlled page table and we know the spte is
>> valid
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Bandan Das
>> ---
>> arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c | 3 ++-
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1
On 28/06/2016 06:32, Bandan Das wrote:
> This is safe because is_shadow_present_pte() is called
> on host controlled page table and we know the spte is
> valid
>
> Signed-off-by: Bandan Das
> ---
> arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/a
This is safe because is_shadow_present_pte() is called
on host controlled page table and we know the spte is
valid
Signed-off-by: Bandan Das
---
arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
index def97b3..a50af79
11 matches
Mail list logo