From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754483AbcFPLVa (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Jun 2016 07:21:30 -0400 Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]:45356 "EHLO mga01.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754255AbcFPLV0 (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Jun 2016 07:21:26 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.26,480,1459839600"; d="scan'208";a="998866154" Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 19:21:21 +0800 From: Haozhong Zhang To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, rkrcmar@redhat.com, Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H . Peter Anvin" , x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Gleb Natapov , Boris Petkov , Tony Luck , Andi Kleen , Ashok Raj Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] KVM: VMX: validate individual bits of guest MSR_IA32_FEATURE_CONTROL Message-ID: <20160616112121.fio2b3rsxdbudyfn@hz-desktop> Mail-Followup-To: Paolo Bonzini , kvm@vger.kernel.org, rkrcmar@redhat.com, Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H . Peter Anvin" , x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Gleb Natapov , Boris Petkov , Tony Luck , Andi Kleen , Ashok Raj References: <20160616060531.30028-1-haozhong.zhang@intel.com> <20160616060531.30028-3-haozhong.zhang@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.1-neo (2016-05-02) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 06/16/16 11:55, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > On 16/06/2016 08:05, Haozhong Zhang wrote: > > + /* > > + * Only bits masked by msr_ia32_feature_control_valid_bits can be set in > > + * msr_ia32_feature_control. > > + * > > + * msr_ia32_feature_control_valid_bits should be modified by > > + * feature_control_valid_bits_add/del(), and only bits masked by > > + * FEATURE_CONTROL_MAX_VALID_BITS can be modified. > > + */ > > u64 msr_ia32_feature_control; > > + u64 msr_ia32_feature_control_valid_bits; > > I noticed that the fw_cfg patch used an uint32_t. It probably should > use uint64_t; what you did here is correct. > I'll fix there. Thanks, Haozhong