[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 02/12] VMX: implement suppress #VE.
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 7:56 PM, Ed White <edmund.h.white@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > In preparation for selectively enabling #VE in a later patch, set > suppress #VE on all EPTE's. > > Suppress #VE should always be the default condition for two reasons: > it is generally not safe to deliver #VE into a guest unless that guest > has been modified to receive it; and even then for most EPT violations only > the hypervisor is able to handle the violation. > > Signed-off-by: Ed White <edmund.h.white@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m-ept.c | 25 ++++++++++++++++++++++++- > 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m-ept.c b/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m-ept.c > index a6c9adf..5de3387 100644 > --- a/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m-ept.c > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m-ept.c > @@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ > #define is_epte_superpage(ept_entry) ((ept_entry)->sp) > static inline bool_t is_epte_valid(ept_entry_t *e) > { > - return (e->epte != 0 && e->sa_p2mt != p2m_invalid); > + return ((e->epte & ~(1ul << 63)) != 0 && e->sa_p2mt != p2m_invalid); So just getting up to speed here: Is it the case that if #VE is enabled in vmcs that a #VE will be delivered to the guest on any invalid epte entry that doesn't contain this flag? So we now need to actively choose a "default" which is different than the hardware? -George _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |