On 05/19/2013 12:52 PM, Jun Nakajima wrote:
> From: 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
Il 19/05/2013 06:52, Jun Nakajima ha scritto:
> + switch (type) {
> + case VMX_EPT_EXTENT_GLOBAL:
> + if (!(nested_vmx_ept_caps & VMX_EPT_EXTENT_GLOBAL_BIT))
> + nested_vmx_failValid(vcpu,
> + VMXERR_INVALID_OPERAND_TO_INVEPT_INVVP
From: 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. Th
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
