Re: [PATCH 08/10] nEPT: Nested INVEPT

[Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>]

On 11/10/2011 12:01 PM, Nadav Har'El wrote:
> If we let L1 use EPT, we should probably also support the INVEPT instruction.
>
> +	case VMX_EPT_EXTENT_CONTEXT:
> +		if (!(nested_vmx_ept_caps & VMX_EPT_EXTENT_CONTEXT_BIT))
> +			nested_vmx_failValid(vcpu,
> +				VMXERR_INVALID_OPERAND_TO_INVEPT_INVVPID);
> +		else {
> +			/*
> +			 * We efficiently handle the common case, of L1
> +			 * invalidating the last eptp it used to run L2.
> +			 * TODO: Instead of saving one last_eptp02, look up
> +			 * operand.eptp in the shadow EPT table cache, to
> +			 * find its shadow. Then last_eptp02 won't be needed.
> +			 */
> +			struct vmcs12 *vmcs12 = get_vmcs12(vcpu);
> +			struct vcpu_vmx *vmx = to_vmx(vcpu);
> +			if (vmcs12 && nested_cpu_has_ept(vmcs12) &&
> +			    (vmcs12->ept_pointer == operand.eptp) &&
> +			    vmx->nested.last_eptp02)
> +				ept_sync_context(vmx->nested.last_eptp02);
> +			else
> +				ept_sync_global();

Are either of these needed?  Won't a write to a shadowed EPT table cause
them anyway?

> +			nested_vmx_succeed(vcpu);
> +		}
> +		break;
> +	case VMX_EPT_EXTENT_INDIVIDUAL_ADDR:
> +		if (!(nested_vmx_ept_caps & VMX_EPT_EXTENT_INDIVIDUAL_BIT))
> +			nested_vmx_failValid(vcpu,
> +				VMXERR_INVALID_OPERAND_TO_INVEPT_INVVPID);
> +		else {
> +			struct vmcs12 *vmcs12 = get_vmcs12(vcpu);
> +			struct vcpu_vmx *vmx = to_vmx(vcpu);
> +			if (vmcs12 && nested_cpu_has_ept(vmcs12) &&
> +			    (vmcs12->ept_pointer == operand.eptp) &&
> +			    vmx->nested.last_eptp02)
> +				ept_sync_individual_addr(
> +					vmx->nested.last_eptp02, operand.gpa);

Same here.

> +			else
> +				ept_sync_global();
> +			nested_vmx_succeed(vcpu);
> +		}
> +		break;
> +	default:
> +		nested_vmx_failValid(vcpu,
> +			VMXERR_INVALID_OPERAND_TO_INVEPT_INVVPID);
> +	}
> +
> +	skip_emulated_instruction(vcpu);
> +	return 1;
> +}
> +
>

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function