Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753854AbdHXQno (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Aug 2017 12:43:44 -0400 Received: from mga05.intel.com ([192.55.52.43]:18275 "EHLO mga05.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751317AbdHXQnn (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Aug 2017 12:43:43 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.41,422,1498546800"; d="scan'208";a="122282567" Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] KVM: MMU: check guest CR3 reserved bits based on its physical address width. To: Paolo Bonzini , kvm@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rkrcmar@redhat.com, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, xiaoguangrong@tencent.com, joro@8bytes.org References: <1503577676-12345-1-git-send-email-yu.c.zhang@linux.intel.com> <1503577676-12345-3-git-send-email-yu.c.zhang@linux.intel.com> <0bce2df3-79ac-599b-19fa-8ebeaff23623@redhat.com> <35e285e7-168a-25e6-1053-c005da18c103@redhat.com> From: Yu Zhang Message-ID: <7f3a513f-e55e-c431-c2ef-b0b5816844eb@linux.intel.com> Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2017 00:21:07 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 885 Lines: 28 On 8/25/2017 12:27 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 24/08/2017 17:38, Yu Zhang wrote: >>> >>> In practice, MAXPHYADDR will never be 59 even because the PKRU bits are >>> at bits 59..62. >> Thanks, Paolo. >> I see. I had made an assumption that MAXPHYADDR shall not exceed the >> physical one, >> which is 52 I believe. But I'm not sure there's any place to check this. >> Maybe we should make sure the vcpu->arch.maxphyaddr will not be greater >> than the value of the host? > That's a separate change anyway. In any case, since currently the > MAXPHYADDR is not validated, your change to rsvd_bits makes sense. Thanks, Paolo. As to this patch series, any change I need do? BTW,  I have written a patch for kvm-unit-test access test, but the test failed. Not sure if my patch is erroneous or due to a simulator error. I'll send out the test patch after it works.:-) Yu > Paolo >