On 14/12/15 14:41, David Vrabel wrote:
> On 07/12/15 10:25, George Dunlap wrote:
>>
>> I took the past tense ("synced") to mean, "These CPUs have been
>> brought into sync (or are no longer out of sync)". So they start out
>> not-synced, so you initialize the bit to be clear; when an INVEPT is
>>
On 07/12/15 10:25, George Dunlap wrote:
>
> I took the past tense ("synced") to mean, "These CPUs have been
> brought into sync (or are no longer out of sync)". So they start out
> not-synced, so you initialize the bit to be clear; when an INVEPT is
> executed, they become synced, so you set the
On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 1:39 PM, David Vrabel wrote:
> On 04/12/15 11:00, George Dunlap wrote:
>> On 03/12/15 16:42, David Vrabel wrote:
>>> If a guest allocates a page and the tlbflush_timestamp on the page
>>> indicates that a TLB flush of the previous owner is required, only the
>>> linear and c
On 04/12/15 11:00, George Dunlap wrote:
> On 03/12/15 16:42, David Vrabel wrote:
>> If a guest allocates a page and the tlbflush_timestamp on the page
>> indicates that a TLB flush of the previous owner is required, only the
>> linear and combined mappings are invalidated. The guest-physical
>> ma
On 03/12/15 16:42, David Vrabel wrote:
> If a guest allocates a page and the tlbflush_timestamp on the page
> indicates that a TLB flush of the previous owner is required, only the
> linear and combined mappings are invalidated. The guest-physical
> mappings are not invalidated.
>
> This is curre
If a guest allocates a page and the tlbflush_timestamp on the page
indicates that a TLB flush of the previous owner is required, only the
linear and combined mappings are invalidated. The guest-physical
mappings are not invalidated.
This is currently safe because the EPT code ensures that the
gue
