From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@redhat.com>,
kvm@vger.kernel.org, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Sandipan Das <sandipan.das@amd.com>,
Daniel Sneddon <daniel.sneddon@linux.intel.com>,
Jing Liu <jing2.liu@intel.com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@kernel.org>,
Wyes Karny <wyes.karny@amd.com>, Babu Moger <babu.moger@amd.com>,
Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
x86@kernel.org, Santosh Shukla <santosh.shukla@amd.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/13] KVM: SVM: Add VNMI bit definition
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2022 20:33:44 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y3aaqJo7ckdUsyde@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Y3ZqOvg2mlBmXAlW@zn.tnic>
On Thu, Nov 17, 2022, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 04:42:57PM +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > Why? This is rarely run code, won't cpu_feature_enabled()
> > unnecessarily require patching?
>
> Because we want one single interface to test X86_FEATURE flags. And
> there's no need for the users to know whether it wants patching or not -
> we simply patch *everywhere* and that's it.
>
> > And while we're on the topic... https://lore.kernel.org/all/Y22IzA9DN%2FxYWgWN@google.com
>
> Because static_ or boot_ is not relevant to the user - all she
> wants to know is whether a cpu feature has been enabled. Thus
> cpu_feature_enabled().
>
> And yes, at the time I protested a little about unnecessary patching.
> And tglx said "Why not?". And I had no good answer to that. So we can
> just as well patch *everywhere*.
Ah, I missed that memo.
Paolo,
Since it sounds like static_cpu_has() is going the way of the dodo, and ditto for
boot_cpu_has() except for flows that don't play nice with patching (none of which
are in KVM), should we do a KVM-wide conversion to cpu_feature_enabled() at some
point in the near future?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-11-17 20:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-11-17 14:32 [PATCH 00/13] SVM: vNMI (with my fixes) Maxim Levitsky
2022-11-17 14:32 ` [PATCH 01/13] KVM: nSVM: don't sync back tlb_ctl on nested VM exit Maxim Levitsky
2022-11-17 14:32 ` [PATCH 02/13] KVM: nSVM: don't call nested_sync_control_from_vmcb02 on each " Maxim Levitsky
2022-11-17 20:04 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-11-21 11:07 ` Maxim Levitsky
2022-11-21 17:51 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-11-17 14:32 ` [PATCH 03/13] KVM: nSVM: rename nested_sync_control_from_vmcb02 to nested_sync_int_ctl_from_vmcb02 Maxim Levitsky
2022-11-17 14:32 ` [PATCH 04/13] KVM: nSVM: clean up copying of int_ctl fields back to vmcb01/vmcb12 Maxim Levitsky
2022-11-17 20:15 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-11-21 11:10 ` Maxim Levitsky
2022-11-17 14:32 ` [PATCH 05/13] x86/cpu: Add CPUID feature bit for VNMI Maxim Levitsky
2022-11-17 14:32 ` [PATCH 06/13] KVM: SVM: Add VNMI bit definition Maxim Levitsky
2022-11-17 14:37 ` Borislav Petkov
2022-11-17 16:42 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-11-17 17:07 ` Borislav Petkov
2022-11-17 20:33 ` Sean Christopherson [this message]
2022-11-17 20:27 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-11-17 14:32 ` [PATCH 07/13] KVM: SVM: Add VNMI support in get/set_nmi_mask Maxim Levitsky
2022-11-17 18:54 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-11-21 12:36 ` Maxim Levitsky
2022-11-21 17:18 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-12-04 18:42 ` Maxim Levitsky
2022-12-06 18:27 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-11-17 14:32 ` [PATCH 08/13] KVM: SVM: Report NMI not allowed when Guest busy handling VNMI Maxim Levitsky
2022-11-17 14:32 ` [PATCH 09/13] KVM: SVM: allow NMI window with vNMI Maxim Levitsky
2022-11-17 18:21 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-11-21 13:40 ` Maxim Levitsky
2022-11-17 14:32 ` [PATCH 10/13] KVM: SVM: Add VNMI support in inject_nmi Maxim Levitsky
2022-11-21 17:12 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-11-17 14:32 ` [PATCH 11/13] KVM: nSVM: implement nested VNMI Maxim Levitsky
2022-11-17 14:32 ` [PATCH 12/13] KVM: nSVM: emulate VMEXIT_INVALID case for " Maxim Levitsky
2022-11-17 20:18 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-11-17 14:32 ` [PATCH 13/13] KVM: SVM: Enable VNMI feature Maxim Levitsky
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Y3aaqJo7ckdUsyde@google.com \
--to=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=babu.moger@amd.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=daniel.sneddon@linux.intel.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=jing2.liu@intel.com \
--cc=jmattson@google.com \
--cc=jpoimboe@kernel.org \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=mlevitsk@redhat.com \
--cc=pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=sandipan.das@amd.com \
--cc=santosh.shukla@amd.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=wyes.karny@amd.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.