On 06/04/2023 3:28 pm, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 06.04.2023 15:27, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> Exceptions and NPT intercepts almost have the same layout, but NPT has bits
>> above 31 in the error code, and the name for exitinfo2 really does want
>> distinguishing between cr2 and gpa.
>>
>> In nsvm_vcpu_vmexit_inject() rearrange VMEXIT_NPF to fall through instead of
>> repeating the exitinfo1 write. Use the fallthrough pseudo keyword instead of
>> a comment.
>>
>> In VMEXIT_NPF, as we're editing the printk() anyway, switch to using the
>> newer
>> domain_crash() form.
>>
>> No functional change.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com>
> Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
>
> with one remark / suggestion:
>
>> @@ -455,6 +461,10 @@ struct vmcb_struct {
>> uint64_t :59;
>> bool mov_insn:1; /* MOV, as opposed to LMSW, CLTS, etc
>> */
>> } mov_cr;
>> + struct {
>> + uint64_t ec;
>> + uint64_t gpa;
>> + } npt;
> Maybe better "npf" than "npt", as it's describing the exit/fault?
Oh yes, of course. That is what I'd intended to put here.
Thanks.
~Andrew
