On Thu, 2010-05-20 at 17:34 +0800, Tim Deegan wrote:
> At 10:41 +0100 on 22 Apr (1271932875), Qing He wrote:
> > In nested virtualization, the L0 controls may not be the same
> > with controls in physical VMCS.
> > Explict maintain guest controls in variables and use wrappers
> > for control update, do not rely on physical control value.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Qing He <qing.he@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> > diff -r fe49b7452637 -r a0bbec37b529 xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmcs.c
> > --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmcs.c Thu Apr 22 21:49:38 2010 +0800
> > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmcs.c Thu Apr 22 21:49:38 2010 +0800
> > @@ -737,10 +737,10 @@
> > __vmwrite(VMCS_LINK_POINTER_HIGH, ~0UL);
> > #endif
> >
> > - __vmwrite(EXCEPTION_BITMAP,
> > - HVM_TRAP_MASK
> > + v->arch.hvm_vmx.exception_bitmap = HVM_TRAP_MASK
> > | (paging_mode_hap(d) ? 0 : (1U << TRAP_page_fault))
> > - | (1U << TRAP_no_device));
> > + | (1U << TRAP_no_device);
> > + __vmwrite(EXCEPTION_BITMAP, v->arch.hvm_vmx.exception_bitmap);
>
> Shouldn't this use the new vmx_update_exception_bitmap()?
I left it unchanged because it's in vmcs.c. To me, vmx.c is on top of
vmcs.c and I feel against inter-dependeny.
Anyway this feeling is not strong. And I'm fine with using
vmx_update_exception_bitmap here since inter-dependency is already
the case.
Thanks,
Qing
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tim.
>
> --
> Tim Deegan <Tim.Deegan@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Principal Software Engineer, XenServer Engineering
> Citrix Systems UK Ltd. (Company #02937203, SL9 0BG)
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Home