From: Bandan Das <bsd@redhat.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, guangrong.xiao@linux.intel.com,
kernellwp@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Add support for EPT execute only for nested hypervisors
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2016 13:38:53 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <jpgbn2086he.fsf@linux.bootlegged.copy> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <26006044-7096-63e5-8156-a15f001d8403@redhat.com> (Paolo Bonzini's message of "Thu, 14 Jul 2016 08:56:24 +0200")
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> writes:
> On 13/07/2016 17:47, Bandan Das wrote:
>>>> I wanted to keep it the former way because "PT_PRESENT_MASK is equal to VMX_EPT_READABLE_MASK"
>>>> is an assumption all throughout. I wanted to use this section to catch mismatches.
>>>
>>> I think there's no such assumption anymore, actually. Can you double
>>> check? If there are any, that's where the BUILD_BUG_ON should be.
>>
>> What I meant is how they are the same bit. is_shadow_present_pte() is probably one
>> and another one is link_shadow_page() which already has a BUILD_BUG_ON().
>
> You're right about link_shadow_page()! We probably should change the
> PT_PRESENT_MASK to shadow_present_mask there (and then readability in
> the EPT execonly case is still provided by shadow_user_mask).
Makes sense. Would you like a new version with that added or can that be a
separate patch ?
> For is_shadow_present_pte() you have removed it in patch 1 though.
Right. But the assumption is still that is_shadow_present_pte() works because
EPT_READABLE and PT_PRESENT are the same.
> Paolo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-07-14 17:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-07-12 22:18 [PATCH v2 0/5] Add support for EPT execute only for nested hypervisors Bandan Das
2016-07-12 22:18 ` [PATCH v2 1/5] mmu: extend the is_present check to 32 bits Bandan Das
2016-09-01 14:20 ` Li, Liang Z
2016-09-01 15:16 ` Paolo Bonzini
2016-07-12 22:18 ` [PATCH v2 2/5] mmu: don't set the present bit unconditionally Bandan Das
2016-07-13 8:10 ` Paolo Bonzini
2016-07-12 22:18 ` [PATCH v2 3/5] mmu: remove is_present_gpte() Bandan Das
2016-07-12 22:18 ` [PATCH v2 4/5] mmu: change unconditional setting of the u bit in fault bitmap Bandan Das
2016-07-13 8:23 ` Paolo Bonzini
2016-07-13 9:06 ` Paolo Bonzini
2016-07-12 22:18 ` [PATCH v2 5/5] vmx: advertise support for ept execute only Bandan Das
2016-07-13 9:20 ` [PATCH v2 0/5] Add support for EPT execute only for nested hypervisors Paolo Bonzini
2016-07-13 9:49 ` Fam Zheng
2016-07-13 10:03 ` Paolo Bonzini
2016-07-13 15:06 ` Bandan Das
2016-07-13 15:27 ` Paolo Bonzini
2016-07-13 15:47 ` Bandan Das
2016-07-14 6:56 ` Paolo Bonzini
2016-07-14 17:38 ` Bandan Das [this message]
2016-07-14 18:29 ` Paolo Bonzini
2016-07-14 18:52 ` Bandan Das
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=jpgbn2086he.fsf@linux.bootlegged.copy \
--to=bsd@redhat.com \
--cc=guangrong.xiao@linux.intel.com \
--cc=kernellwp@gmail.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.