From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.4 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_MED,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB240C43603 for ; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 17:57:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2948206DA for ; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 17:57:27 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="P/NXCOyu" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730261AbfLLR51 (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Dec 2019 12:57:27 -0500 Received: from mail-io1-f65.google.com ([209.85.166.65]:45739 "EHLO mail-io1-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1730279AbfLLR5W (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Dec 2019 12:57:22 -0500 Received: by mail-io1-f65.google.com with SMTP id i11so3692772ioi.12 for ; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 09:57:20 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Z3b25UQSnY6IqzYufZw5HPv7RWsFnuJ1qSwiqH0n/5k=; b=P/NXCOyuvKPRWV08VvBA1CWwjXOq2454qr5DFs1i0dx4F3LwmHgj/7p/j/+AGA99YD XIWPe87cEztItjq6Zn8pXyHQMZzUEyk8kqXBqi68MgB1GzmECBjHyMdn1YF8qh4niHqF 15iEyVZAXPani4kohcMWSIPOP56G3yUYSGRJL25s3s84BNsfC5kk8KqEHY45RIJQ+km+ 7nHZhB/fWqMWEC6MkyRtbCJy0SemmaaZZQ7fv7RUOd6VaANEf7I7bBZlkcwJwTtSaJyL vQnVIlgojZJ3h4eqkao2clnBKHHZBF/oNu3jwsKJCm7C8CENNAUPifuciLGZ/2ZT8P21 DDpA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Z3b25UQSnY6IqzYufZw5HPv7RWsFnuJ1qSwiqH0n/5k=; b=fUoCX2P5KUpPVHmfiUu61gsxz94lXMeKv5C7+RN7KQoWiZ2S25eXJQvXvtAkx87TaN Hs2b9KYkLcLsFo7QGWUDhaCJcmsaKWo0RMLbxgBmhzAspHIad0KLUa9DWpQV4H552ptU qR4dIF/hBNL8RBjiUFanXYxwL9RaraXa77UQWCwAZT+NHd5IjOvy7kqPTi95ZlpBAIBE vWkQaYjfyOfkHmmVCMPJrU5HDnIImbY1oBZVUZQNeBFf5aor471a8DiEWBO6YToWqncP uxNQaAw+yI6B5h6eeNPKEBMEhIiE3DaiKvwzEHZfl+rdvdAPTuCgDJ9TpNJXK9jDtyxz wMZw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXwnvWzUkPgicTdyxtpvwmT5YsgcSarqQPGO/cHO8PfjGsSgeOJ CNzzIIr5EEDxjWRv/BuFEsqHJZg0RTCmAjcHdAPO5g== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyPE6NbezzK+SCpWx81FOcItGOWVU3L02OQJNEvkysZZsXSDO4rXcsGBPHVc3pNcmN4ZTMpi09J8E7N8GzXb0A= X-Received: by 2002:a5e:9b15:: with SMTP id j21mr3746698iok.108.1576173439923; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 09:57:19 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20191128014016.4389-1-sean.j.christopherson@intel.com> <20191128014016.4389-12-sean.j.christopherson@intel.com> <20191212122646.GE4991@zn.tnic> <4A24DE75-4E68-4EC6-B3F3-4ACB0EE82BF0@oracle.com> <17c6569e-d0af-539c-6d63-f4c07367d8d1@redhat.com> <20191212174357.GE3163@linux.intel.com> <52dd758d-a590-52a6-4248-22d6852b75cd@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: From: Jim Mattson Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2019 09:57:08 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 11/19] x86/cpu: Print VMX flags in /proc/cpuinfo using VMX_FEATURES_* To: Liran Alon Cc: Paolo Bonzini , Sean Christopherson , Borislav Petkov , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "the arch/x86 maintainers" , "H. Peter Anvin" , Peter Zijlstra , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Mark Rutland , Alexander Shishkin , Jiri Olsa , Namhyung Kim , =?UTF-8?B?UmFkaW0gS3LEjW3DocWZ?= , Vitaly Kuznetsov , Wanpeng Li , Joerg Roedel , Tony Luck , Tony W Wang-oc , Len Brown , Shuah Khan , LKML , kvm list , linux-edac@vger.kernel.org, Linux PM list , "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" , Jarkko Sakkinen Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: kvm@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 9:53 AM Liran Alon wrote: > Why should CPU VMX features be treated differently than standard CPUID deduced features? Do we have the right Intel people on the recipient list to answer this question? Presumably, Intel felt that this information should be available in supervisor mode only. Sean?