[PATCH 08/12] Subject: [PATCH 08/10] nEPT: Nested INVEPT

2013-04-25 Thread Nakajima, Jun
If we let L1 use EPT, we should probably also support the INVEPT instruction. In our current nested EPT implementation, when L1 changes its EPT table for L2 (i.e., EPT12), L0 modifies the shadow EPT table (EPT02), and in the course of this modification already calls INVEPT. Therefore, when L1 call

[PATCH 08/10] nEPT: Nested INVEPT

2012-08-01 Thread Nadav Har'El
If we let L1 use EPT, we should probably also support the INVEPT instruction. In our current nested EPT implementation, when L1 changes its EPT table for L2 (i.e., EPT12), L0 modifies the shadow EPT table (EPT02), and in the course of this modification already calls INVEPT. Therefore, when L1 call

Re: [PATCH 08/10] nEPT: Nested INVEPT

2011-12-11 Thread Avi Kivity
On 12/11/2011 04:24 PM, Nadav Har'El wrote: > On Thu, Nov 10, 2011, Avi Kivity wrote about "Re: [PATCH 08/10] nEPT: Nested > INVEPT": > > On 11/10/2011 12:01 PM, Nadav Har'El wrote: > > > If we let L1 use EPT, we should probably a

Re: [PATCH 08/10] nEPT: Nested INVEPT

2011-12-11 Thread Nadav Har'El
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011, Avi Kivity wrote about "Re: [PATCH 08/10] nEPT: Nested INVEPT": > On 11/10/2011 12:01 PM, Nadav Har'El wrote: > > If we let L1 use EPT, we should probably also support the INVEPT > > instruction. >.. > > +

Re: [PATCH 08/10] nEPT: Nested INVEPT

2011-11-10 Thread Avi Kivity
On 11/10/2011 12:01 PM, Nadav Har'El wrote: > If we let L1 use EPT, we should probably also support the INVEPT instruction. > > + case VMX_EPT_EXTENT_CONTEXT: > + if (!(nested_vmx_ept_caps & VMX_EPT_EXTENT_CONTEXT_BIT)) > + nested_vmx_failValid(vcpu, > +

[PATCH 08/10] nEPT: Nested INVEPT

2011-11-10 Thread Nadav Har'El
If we let L1 use EPT, we should probably also support the INVEPT instruction. Signed-off-by: Nadav Har'El --- arch/x86/include/asm/vmx.h |2 arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c | 112 +++ 2 files changed, 114 insertions(+) --- .before/arch/x86/include/asm/vmx.h 201