From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934374AbeBMKll (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Feb 2018 05:41:41 -0500 Received: from mx3-rdu2.redhat.com ([66.187.233.73]:52146 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934011AbeBMKli (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Feb 2018 05:41:38 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86/speculation: Support "Enhanced IBRS" on future CPUs To: David Woodhouse , tglx@linutronix.de, x86@kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, arjan.van.de.ven@intel.com, dave.hansen@intel.com References: <1518449255-2182-1-git-send-email-dwmw@amazon.co.uk> <1518449255-2182-2-git-send-email-dwmw@amazon.co.uk> <7e2e5ad1-49b6-1fdb-4a62-8ad6aefc30a0@redhat.com> <1518509708.12890.33.camel@infradead.org> <27c85759-e662-d281-f8a0-0a80ca8ee18f@redhat.com> <1518517262.12890.43.camel@infradead.org> <1518518198.12890.48.camel@infradead.org> From: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: <02bd3fdd-1b73-6cab-fb09-38ba933396bd@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 11:41:35 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1518518198.12890.48.camel@infradead.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 13/02/2018 11:36, David Woodhouse wrote: >>> - if the VM has IBRS_ALL, pass through the MSR when it is zero and >>> intercept writes when it is one (no writes should happen) >>>   >>> - if the VM doesn't have IBRS_ALL, do as we are doing now, independent >>> of what the host spectre_v2_ibrs_all() setting is. >> We end up having to turn IBRS on again on vmexit then, taking care that >> no conditional branch can go round it. So that becomes an >> *unconditional* wrmsr or lfence in the vmexit path. We really don't >> want that. > > Note that being able to keep it simple in KVM was basically what made > the difference between me tolerating IBRS_ALL as Intel currently define > it, and throwing my toys out of the pram (as I had done in the first > iterations of this patch). You have my vote. :) Really, IBRS_ALL makes no sense and it would be nice to know _why_ Intel is pushing something that makes no sense. Paolo