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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220204115718.14934-1-pbonzini@redhat.com> <20220204115718.14934-11-pbonzini@redhat.com>
 <Yf2hRltaM1Ezd6SM@google.com> <04e568ee-8e44-dabe-2cc3-94b9c95287e1@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <04e568ee-8e44-dabe-2cc3-94b9c95287e1@redhat.com>
From:   David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>
Date:   Mon, 7 Feb 2022 13:38:48 -0800
Message-ID: <CALzav=eTgXJaVhrtT4SUNVvXW=WLQNHquvNNG2s6rh+_cGh+3w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/23] KVM: MMU: split cpu_role from mmu_role
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        kvm list <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Feb 5, 2022 at 6:49 AM Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> 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.

Agreed.

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

Ok sounds good.

>
> Paolo
>