Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 14 Jul 2011 17:01:30 +0300 | From | Avi Kivity <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/7] KVM: SVM: Use host_vmcb_pa for vmload and vmsave |
| |
On 07/14/2011 04:52 PM, Joerg Roedel wrote: > > What about an L2 guest executing VMLOAD or VMSAVE which isn't > > intercepted? Don't we have to redirect it's reads and writes to > > host_vmcb? > > Yes, that needs to target the host_vmcb then. This is buggy in the > patch-set. Thanks for pointing this out :)
For the low price of an additional test to svm.flat.
> >> Hmm, how about naming them l1_vmcb and l2_vmcb? The comment explaining > >> why vmload/vmsave always happens on l1_vmcb is needed anyway then. > > > > In a later patch you introduce n_vmcb. I think it makes sense to name > > that vmcb02? > > Just for my understanding, what stands the first '0' for? The '1' and > '2' make sense, but the '0' seems to be redundant?
The first number is the level running in host mode, the second is the level running guest mode.
vmcb01: host running guest vmcb02: host running nested guest vmcb12: guest running nested guest (i.e. the virtual vmcb in guest physical address space)
> > Even the exising code would be good to document. So when a reader sees > > some bit, they can compare it to the document and see why it's that way. > > I tried to put comments into the code to document the most complicated > parts. But there is certainly room for improvement. Overall, I think the > best place is to keep those comments in the code and not open another > document for it.
Those are good for the details, but not so good for the master plan. Like mmu.txt.
> >> The long-term plan is certainly to merge code with nested-vmx where > >> possible and move logic into generic KVM code. The first item that comes > >> to mind here is to create a single place where a vmexit is emulated and > >> let all other place which do that today just signal that it is required. > > > > I'm not very concerned about reuse with nvmx except for architectural > > code like interrupts. Of course, if it turns out simple I'm all for it, > > but if it's hard or uglifies the code, let it be. > > Yes, the interrupt code is another part that probably can be made > generic.
Yes.
> The nested-mmu code is already generic. Nested-VMX should be able to > make use of it with only minor modifications.
Yup, just need support for parsing the EPT PTE format.
-- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
| |