From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Egger, Christoph" Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1 V3] x86/AMD: Fix nested svm crash due to assertion in __virt_to_maddr Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 10:14:24 +0200 Message-ID: <51E7A3E0.4080306@amazon.de> References: <1373564054-4293-1-git-send-email-suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com> <51DFD3EC02000078000E45BB@nat28.tlf.novell.com> <20130717194359.GB80836@ocelot.phlegethon.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20130717194359.GB80836@ocelot.phlegethon.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Tim Deegan Cc: suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com, Jan Beulich , xen-devel@lists.xen.org List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 17.07.13 21:43, Tim Deegan wrote: >> I'm not clear about the need for this new wrapper: Is it really >> benign to the caller what type, access, and order get returned >> here? Is it really too much of a burden to have the two call >> sites do the call here directly? The more that (see above) you'd >> really need to give the caller control over the access requested? > > Yeah, I'm not sure the wrapper is needed. Can the callers just use > get_page_from_gfn() to do the translation from guest-MFN -- i.e. will we > always be in non-nested mode when we're emulating VMLOAD/VMSAVE? When you run an L2 hypervisor then you are in nested mode. Christoph