Following the same line of reasoning, what if
vmx->nested.nested_vmx_secondary_ctls_high is 0 after clearing
SECONDARY_EXEC_ENABLE_VMFUNC? Does it make sense to report
CPU_BASED_ACTIVATE_SECONDARY_CONTROLS if we don't actually support any
of the secondary controls?
Reviewed-by: Jim Mattson <jmatt...@google.com>
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 9:03 PM, Wanpeng Li <kernel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Wanpeng Li <wanpeng...@hotmail.com>
>
> I can use vmxcap tool to observe "EPTP Switching yes" even if EPT is not
> exposed to L1.
>
> EPT switching is advertised unconditionally since it is emulated, however,
> it can be treated as an extended feature for EPT and it should not be
> advertised if EPT itself is not exposed. This patch fixes it.
>
> Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com>
> Cc: Radim Krčmář <rkrc...@redhat.com>
> Cc: Jim Mattson <jmatt...@google.com>
> Signed-off-by: Wanpeng Li <wanpeng...@hotmail.com>
> ---
> v1 -> v2:
> * don't advertise "EPT VM Functions" in secondary processor-based
> VM-execution
> controls if we don't actually support any VM Functions.
>
> arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c | 8 ++++++--
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
> index c460b0b..a6861ca 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
> @@ -2842,8 +2842,12 @@ static void nested_vmx_setup_ctls_msrs(struct vcpu_vmx
> *vmx)
> * Advertise EPTP switching unconditionally
> * since we emulate it
> */
> - vmx->nested.nested_vmx_vmfunc_controls =
> - VMX_VMFUNC_EPTP_SWITCHING;
> + if (enable_ept) {
> + vmx->nested.nested_vmx_vmfunc_controls =
> + VMX_VMFUNC_EPTP_SWITCHING;
> + } else
> + vmx->nested.nested_vmx_secondary_ctls_high &=
> + ~SECONDARY_EXEC_ENABLE_VMFUNC;
> }
>
> /*
> --
> 2.7.4
>
