From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Bandan Das <bsd@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] Add support for EPT execute only for nested hypervisors
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 00:50:54 -0400
Message-ID: <jpgziqb1975.fsf@linux.bootlegged.copy>
References: <1466478746-14153-1-git-send-email-bsd@redhat.com>
	<576A169B.5090608@linux.intel.com>
	<jpglh1xw5ap.fsf@linux.bootlegged.copy>
	<576B6D9F.9020806@linux.intel.com>
	<jpg8txv47mh.fsf@linux.bootlegged.copy>
	<1951526417.1647454.1466742172232.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Cc: Xiao Guangrong <guangrong.xiao@linux.intel.com>,
	kvm@vger.kernel.org
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:36933 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1750831AbcFXEu4 (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 24 Jun 2016 00:50:56 -0400
In-Reply-To: <1951526417.1647454.1466742172232.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com>
	(Paolo Bonzini's message of "Fri, 24 Jun 2016 00:22:52 -0400 (EDT)")
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> writes:

>> I am tempted to remove the FNAME version altogether and change
>> is_present_gpte()
>> to return (pte & PT_PRESENT_MASK) || (shadow_xonly_valid && (pte & 4)). This
>> will take care of all cases. Hope I am not missing something :)
>
> Please rename the non-FNAME version to pae_is_present_pdpte or just inline
> it in the two callers.

I am still not sure why the FNAME version is needed, specifically the PTTYPE_EPT
specific check. Why can't we  just check for execonly and the corresponding
bit in the non FNAME version ?

> Paolo