>>> On 15.10.15 at 08:42, <kai.hu...@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> Thanks for your comments Jan. Actually I am not happy with combining
> with EPT A/D bit update with PML enabling to single function. After
> thinking again, how about adding a separate vmx function (ex,
> vmx_domain_update_eptp) to update EPTP of VMCS of all vcpus of domain
> after p2m->ept.ept_ad is updated. Another good is this function can also
> be used in the future for other runtime updates to p2m->ept.
>
> What's your idea?
I don't mind, but that's really more of a question to the VMX maintainers.
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m-ept.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m-ept.c
> @@ -1129,17 +1129,26 @@ void ept_sync_domain(struct p2m_domain *p2m)
>
> static void ept_enable_pml(struct p2m_domain *p2m)
> {
> /*
> - * No need to check if vmx_domain_enable_pml has succeeded or not, as
> + * No need to return if vmx_domain_enable_pml has succeeded or not, as
It seems to me that you'd better use "whether" instead of "if" now
(and then perhaps also drop the "or not").
> * ept_p2m_type_to_flags will do the check, and write protection will be
> * used if PML is not enabled.
> */
> - vmx_domain_enable_pml(p2m->domain);
> + if ( vmx_domain_enable_pml(p2m->domain) )
> + return;
> +
> + p2m->ept.ept_ad = 1;
> + vmx_domain_update_eptp(p2m->domain);
Shouldn't you enable A/D _before_ enabling PML, at least without
having a domain-is-paused check here?
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
