[lkml]   [2017]   [Oct]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 1/2] KVM: VMX: Don't advertise EPT switching if EPT itself is not exposed
Similarly, it is legal for the IA32_VMX_VMFUNC MSR to report all-zero.

For consistency, perhaps we should not clear the "enable VM functions"
capability in the IA32_VMX_PROCBASED_CTLS2 MSR just because we do not
support any VM functions.

On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 10:35 AM, Paolo Bonzini <> wrote:
> On 17/10/2017 19:29, Jim Mattson wrote:
>> Following the same line of reasoning, what if
>> vmx->nested.nested_vmx_secondary_ctls_high is 0 after clearing
>> SECONDARY_EXEC_ENABLE_VMFUNC? Does it make sense to report
>> CPU_BASED_ACTIVATE_SECONDARY_CONTROLS if we don't actually support any
>> of the secondary controls?
> All-zero is a valid value for secondary controls, so I think yes. Besides:
> 1) userspace can always get into a situation where there are no valid
> secondary controls but processor-based execution controls have bit 31 as
> 1-allowed;
> 2) I doubt that vmfunc can be the one bit that causes
> nested_vmx_secondary_ctls_high to become zero :)
> Paolo

 \ /
  Last update: 2017-10-17 20:30    [W:0.038 / U:23.664 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site