Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <04e568ee-8e44-dabe-2cc3-94b9c95287e1@redhat.com>
Date:   Sat, 5 Feb 2022 15:49:12 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.5.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/23] KVM: MMU: split cpu_role from mmu_role
Content-Language: en-US
To:     David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        seanjc@google.com, vkuznets@redhat.com
References: <20220204115718.14934-1-pbonzini@redhat.com>
 <20220204115718.14934-11-pbonzini@redhat.com> <Yf2hRltaM1Ezd6SM@google.com>
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <Yf2hRltaM1Ezd6SM@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 2/4/22 22:57, David Matlack wrote:
>> +	vcpu->arch.root_mmu.cpu_role.base.level = 0;
>> +	vcpu->arch.guest_mmu.cpu_role.base.level = 0;
>> +	vcpu->arch.nested_mmu.cpu_role.base.level = 0;
> Will cpu_role.base.level already be 0 if CR0.PG=0 && !tdp_enabled? i.e.
> setting cpu_role.base.level to 0 might not have the desired effect.
> 
> It might not matter in practice since the shadow_mmu_init_context() and
> kvm_calc_mmu_role_common() check both the mmu_role and cpu_role, but does
> make this reset code confusing.
> 

Good point.  The (still unrealized) purpose of this series is to be able 
to check mmu_role only, so for now I'll just keep the valid bit in the 
ext part of the cpu_role.  The mmu_role's level however is never zero, 
so I can already use the level when I remove the ext part from the mmu_role.

I'll remove the valid bit of the ext part only after the cpu_role check 
is removed, because then it can trivially go.

Paolo