From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paolo Bonzini Subject: Re: Nested EPT Write Protection Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 13:26:31 +0200 Message-ID: <5587F0E7.4030801@redhat.com> References: <5583B63B.1080907@redhat.com> <558433EF.4040508@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: kvm To: Hu Yaohui Return-path: Received: from mail-wg0-f52.google.com ([74.125.82.52]:34398 "EHLO mail-wg0-f52.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933252AbbFVL0e (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Jun 2015 07:26:34 -0400 Received: by wgqq4 with SMTP id q4so13582027wgq.1 for ; Mon, 22 Jun 2015 04:26:33 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 19/06/2015 20:57, Hu Yaohui wrote: > One more thing, for the standard guest VM which uses EPT, What's the > usage of "gfn" field in the "struct kvm_mmu_page"? Since it uses EPT, > a single shadow page should has no relation with any of the guest > physical page, right? The gfn is the same value that you can find in bits 12 to MAXPHYADDR-1 of the EPT page table entry. Paolo > According to the source code, each allocated > shadow page "struct kvm_mmu_page" got it's gfn field filled. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in