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;
Date:   Thu, 17 Nov 2022 09:58:36 -0800
From:   Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@gmail.com>
To:     "Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@intel.com>
Cc:     "kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Yamahata, Isaku" <isaku.yamahata@intel.com>,
        "sean.j.christopherson@intel.com" <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>,
        "pbonzini@redhat.com" <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        "Shahar, Sagi" <sagis@google.com>,
        "Aktas, Erdem" <erdemaktas@google.com>,
        "isaku.yamahata@gmail.com" <isaku.yamahata@gmail.com>,
        "dmatlack@google.com" <dmatlack@google.com>,
        "Christopherson,, Sean" <seanjc@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 033/108] KVM: x86/mmu: Allow non-zero value for
 non-present SPTE and removed SPTE
Message-ID: <20221117175836.GI2350331@ls.amr.corp.intel.com>
References: <cover.1667110240.git.isaku.yamahata@intel.com>
 <a5be8d9fd5753e17ad2ae4b5fc360501bdf2e84a.1667110240.git.isaku.yamahata@intel.com>
 <2d5e7d04d2e9399b0883a16d8ba3379a57d5b9f5.camel@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <2d5e7d04d2e9399b0883a16d8ba3379a57d5b9f5.camel@intel.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Nov 09, 2022 at 11:24:12AM +0000,
"Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@intel.com> wrote:

> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/spte.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/spte.c
> > index 2e08b2a45361..0b97a045c5f0 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/spte.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/spte.c
> > @@ -419,7 +419,9 @@ void kvm_mmu_set_ept_masks(bool has_ad_bits, bool has_exec_only)
> >  	shadow_dirty_mask	= has_ad_bits ? VMX_EPT_DIRTY_BIT : 0ull;
> >  	shadow_nx_mask		= 0ull;
> >  	shadow_x_mask		= VMX_EPT_EXECUTABLE_MASK;
> > -	shadow_present_mask	= has_exec_only ? 0ull : VMX_EPT_READABLE_MASK;
> > +	/* VMX_EPT_SUPPRESS_VE_BIT is needed for W or X violation. */
> > +	shadow_present_mask	=
> > +		(has_exec_only ? 0ull : VMX_EPT_READABLE_MASK) | VMX_EPT_SUPPRESS_VE_BIT;
> 
> I think this chunk can be in a separate patch since it doesn't handle fault from
> non-present to present, which is claimed by the patch title and changelog.
> 
> Or I think you need to describe handling W or X fault part in the changelog.

Ok, let me try to split that hunk.
-- 
Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@gmail.com>