Re: [PATCH v4] KVM: x86: Implement PCID/INVPCID for guests with EPT

[Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>]

On 07/02/2012 03:32 AM, Mao, Junjie wrote:
>> > I think this means I can replace the code here with a check in
>> nested_vmx_run. Do I understand correctly?
>> 
>> Correct, but the check already exists:
>>     if (!vmx_control_verify(vmcs12->cpu_based_vm_exec_control,
>>           nested_vmx_procbased_ctls_low,
>> nested_vmx_procbased_ctls_high) ||
>>         !vmx_control_verify(vmcs12->secondary_vm_exec_control,
>>           nested_vmx_secondary_ctls_low,
>> nested_vmx_secondary_ctls_high) ||
>>         !vmx_control_verify(vmcs12->pin_based_vm_exec_control,
>>           nested_vmx_pinbased_ctls_low, nested_vmx_pinbased_ctls_high)
>> ||
>>         !vmx_control_verify(vmcs12->vm_exit_controls,
>>           nested_vmx_exit_ctls_low, nested_vmx_exit_ctls_high) ||
>>         !vmx_control_verify(vmcs12->vm_entry_controls,
>>           nested_vmx_entry_ctls_low, nested_vmx_entry_ctls_high))
>>     {
>>         nested_vmx_failValid(vcpu,
>> VMXERR_ENTRY_INVALID_CONTROL_FIELD);
>>         return 1;
>>     }
>> 
>> So all that is needed is to initializr nested_vmx_entry_ctls_high properly.
> 
> nested_vmx_entry_ctls_high only contains SECONDARY_EXEC_VIRTUALIZE_APIC_ACCESSES at present, which means it should be safe to simply remove the code.

Yes, I misread the code as initializing it to what the cpu supports, but
it is correct as is.  So just drop this check.



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