From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Xiao Guangrong <guangrong.xiao@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] mmu: don't set the present bit unconditionally
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 15:18:31 +0800
Message-ID: <5774C7C7.2080501@linux.intel.com>
References: <1467088360-10186-1-git-send-email-bsd@redhat.com>
 <1467088360-10186-4-git-send-email-bsd@redhat.com>
 <57733DD3.7040404@linux.intel.com>
 <3b4a6bb6-4364-b188-48da-be79c0dc7534@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, Bandan Das <bsd@redhat.com>,
	kvm@vger.kernel.org
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <3b4a6bb6-4364-b188-48da-be79c0dc7534@redhat.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org



On 06/29/2016 04:18 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> On 29/06/2016 05:17, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
>>>
>>> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
>>> @@ -2516,13 +2516,17 @@ static int set_spte(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64
>>> *sptep,
>>>                gfn_t gfn, kvm_pfn_t pfn, bool speculative,
>>>                bool can_unsync, bool host_writable)
>>>    {
>>> -    u64 spte;
>>> +    u64 spte = 0;
>>>        int ret = 0;
>>> +    struct kvm_mmu *context = &vcpu->arch.mmu;
>>> +    bool execonly = !(context->guest_rsvd_check.bad_mt_xwr &
>>> +              (1ull << VMX_EPT_EXECUTABLE_MASK));
>>
>> Could we introduce a new field, say execonly, to "struct kvm_mmu"?
>> That would make the code be more clearer.
>
> Given how execonly is used, let's add shadow_present_mask instead.

Yup, it is better.