This is cryptic, better to have separate macros for it
#define INVVPID_SINGLE_CTX_SUP(cap) ((cap) & (1UL << 41))
#define INVVPID_ALL_CTX_SUP(cap) ((cap) & (1UL << 42))

Might be worth splitting these out into individual tests, since I have a change that will look at the EPT capabilities individually (for PR 203994, bhyve as a KVM guest. Jan - judging from your work in https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/kvm/list/?submitter=170053 you are intimately familiar with this issue :)

It was done in that way to minimize produced patch. Actually, I would prefer to declare masks and check them against cap in code. Something like that:

#define INVVPID_MASK_SINGLE_CONTEXT	(1UL << 41)
#define INVVPID_MASK_ALL_CONTEXTS	(1UL << 42)
...

int
ept_init(int ipinum)
{
	...
	/* invvpid instruction with required types is supported */
	if(!INVVPID_SUPPORTED(cap) ||
	    !(cap & INVVPID_MASK_SINGLE_CONTEXT) ||
	    !(cap & INVVPID_MASK_ALL_CONTEXTS))
		return (EINVAL);

I have a change that will look at the EPT capabilities individually

I suppose it would be feasible to wait for your changes will be done.

Jan - judging from your work in https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/kvm/list/?submitter=170053 you are intimately familiar with this issue :)

Yes, all these changes came from my attempt to run bhyve in KVM guest :)