[PATCH v2 08/13] nEPT: Some additional comments

[Jun Nakajima <jun.nakajima@intel.com>]

Some additional comments to preexisting code:
Explain who (L0 or L1) handles EPT violation and misconfiguration exits.
Don't mention "shadow on either EPT or shadow" as the only two options.

Signed-off-by: Nadav Har'El <nyh@il.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Jun Nakajima <jun.nakajima@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Xinhao Xu <xinhao.xu@intel.com>
---
 arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c | 13 +++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)

diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
index d797d3e..419b9e3 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
@@ -6127,7 +6127,20 @@ static bool nested_vmx_exit_handled(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
 		return nested_cpu_has2(vmcs12,
 			SECONDARY_EXEC_VIRTUALIZE_APIC_ACCESSES);
 	case EXIT_REASON_EPT_VIOLATION:
+		/*
+		 * L0 always deals with the EPT violation. If nested EPT is
+		 * used, and the nested mmu code discovers that the address is
+		 * missing in the guest EPT table (EPT12), the EPT violation
+		 * will be injected with nested_ept_inject_page_fault()
+		 */
+		return 0;
 	case EXIT_REASON_EPT_MISCONFIG:
+		/*
+		 * L2 never uses directly L1's EPT, but rather L0's own EPT
+		 * table (shadow on EPT) or a merged EPT table that L0 built
+		 * (EPT on EPT). So any problems with the structure of the
+		 * table is L0's fault.
+		 */
 		return 0;
 	case EXIT_REASON_WBINVD:
 		return nested_cpu_has2(vmcs12, SECONDARY_EXEC_WBINVD_EXITING);
-- 
1.8.1.2