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: <7db9977ef1ec3f67ea2da1599f168825d7173111.camel@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v5 042/104] KVM: x86/mmu: Track shadow MMIO
 value/mask on a per-VM basis
From:   Kai Huang <kai.huang@intel.com>
To:     Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@gmail.com>
Cc:     isaku.yamahata@intel.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>, erdemaktas@google.com,
        Connor Kuehl <ckuehl@redhat.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <20220408191239.GD857847@ls.amr.corp.intel.com>
References: <cover.1646422845.git.isaku.yamahata@intel.com>
         <b494b94bf2d6a5d841cb76e63e255d4cff906d83.1646422845.git.isaku.yamahata@intel.com>
         <1c7710a87eed650e4423935012e27747fb8c9dd8.camel@intel.com>
         <20220408191239.GD857847@ls.amr.corp.intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date:   Sat, 09 Apr 2022 11:34:07 +1200
User-Agent: Evolution 3.42.4 (3.42.4-1.fc35) 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 2022-04-08 at 12:12 -0700, Isaku Yamahata wrote:
> > > -	shadow_present_mask	= has_exec_only ? 0ull :
> > > VMX_EPT_READABLE_MASK;
> > > +	shadow_present_mask	=
> > > +		(has_exec_only ? 0ull : VMX_EPT_READABLE_MASK) |
> > > init_value;
> > 
> > This change doesn't seem make any sense.  Why should "Suppress #VE" bit be
> > set
> > for a present PTE?
> 
> Because W or NX violation also needs #VE.  Although the name uses present,
> it's
> actually readable.

Yeah I forgot this.  Thanks!

-- 
Thanks,
-Kai