nEPT: Some additional comments

Some additional comments to preexisting code:
Explain who (L0 or L1) handles EPT violation and misconfiguration exits.
Don't mention "shadow on either EPT or shadow" as the only two options.
Reviewed-by: NXiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: NNadav Har'El <nyh@il.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: NJun Nakajima <jun.nakajima@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: NXinhao Xu <xinhao.xu@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: NYang Zhang <yang.z.zhang@Intel.com>
Signed-off-by: NGleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: NPaolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>

arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c

@@ -6669,7 +6669,20 @@ static bool nested_vmx_exit_handled(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
 		return nested_cpu_has2(vmcs12,
 			SECONDARY_EXEC_VIRTUALIZE_APIC_ACCESSES);
 	case EXIT_REASON_EPT_VIOLATION:
+		/*
+		 * L0 always deals with the EPT violation. If nested EPT is
+		 * used, and the nested mmu code discovers that the address is
+		 * missing in the guest EPT table (EPT12), the EPT violation
+		 * will be injected with nested_ept_inject_page_fault()
+		 */
+		return 0;
 	case EXIT_REASON_EPT_MISCONFIG:
+		/*
+		 * L2 never uses directly L1's EPT, but rather L0's own EPT
+		 * table (shadow on EPT) or a merged EPT table that L0 built
+		 * (EPT on EPT). So any problems with the structure of the
+		 * table is L0's fault.
+		 */
 		return 0;
 	case EXIT_REASON_PREEMPTION_TIMER:
 		return vmcs12->pin_based_vm_exec_control &