Re: [PATCH v10 0/9] Linear Address Masking (LAM) KVM Enabling

[Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>]

On Fri, Aug 18, 2023, Binbin Wu wrote:
> 
> On 8/17/2023 5:17 PM, Binbin Wu wrote:
> > 
> > On 8/17/2023 6:25 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 19, 2023, Binbin Wu wrote:
> > > > Binbin Wu (7):
> > > >    KVM: x86/mmu: Use GENMASK_ULL() to define __PT_BASE_ADDR_MASK
> > > >    KVM: x86: Add & use kvm_vcpu_is_legal_cr3() to check CR3's legality
> > > >    KVM: x86: Use KVM-governed feature framework to track "LAM enabled"
> > > >    KVM: x86: Virtualize CR3.LAM_{U48,U57}
> > > >    KVM: x86: Introduce get_untagged_addr() in kvm_x86_ops and
> > > > call it in
> > > >      emulator
> > > >    KVM: VMX: Implement and wire get_untagged_addr() for LAM
> > > >    KVM: x86: Untag address for vmexit handlers when LAM applicable
> > > > 
> > > > Robert Hoo (2):
> > > >    KVM: x86: Virtualize CR4.LAM_SUP
> > > >    KVM: x86: Expose LAM feature to userspace VMM
> > > Looks good, just needs a bit of re-organination.  Same goes for the
> > > LASS series.
> > > 
> > > For the next version, can you (or Zeng) send a single series for LAM
> > > and LASS?
> > > They're both pretty much ready to go, i.e. I don't expect one to
> > > hold up the other
> > > at this point, and posting a single series will reduce the
> > > probability of me
> > > screwing up a conflict resolution or missing a dependency when applying.
> > > 
> Hi Sean,
> Do you still prefer a single series for LAM and LASS  for the next version
> when we don't need to rush for v6.6?

Yes, if it's not too much trouble on your end.  Since the two have overlapping
prep work and concepts, and both series are in good shape, my strong preference
is to grab them at the same time.  I would much rather apply what you've tested
and reduce the probability of messing up any conflicts.