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 A67F3C2D0C9 for ; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 17:57:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84F5C22B48 for ; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 17:57:21 +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 S1730023AbfLLR5V (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Dec 2019 12:57:21 -0500 Received: from mail-io1-f66.google.com ([209.85.166.66]:46797 "EHLO mail-io1-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1730226AbfLLR5U (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Dec 2019 12:57:20 -0500 Received: by mail-io1-f66.google.com with SMTP id t26so3686655ioi.13 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=HiQeIADfQhzefxdVQFIHGpRPfR0rCEbWeLVbguNIrpH4zS3DdrjOgHb0JFd24QpjFi IjHqjjMK8AciYdJK9aDVTA95PLKfzaBYc+PI6XMIR6fO3SqilIUpjc2yTlfTeI2q0hV6 xUgA2ANDCk/JQxJ/am+87uqBaHkKgcam5AWmqZ8tWNEoEERk4kzv0coeQERoQM4JLFXx eYN8HoupOm9DA8DyDmS3gsA7EW0Aa+yvJucW2Rkti+X7btTiac7jzGsT4Xl+MTrNhGpe uzuCxeoa6yUH7OtnA8vILb36sanDD+GEfHUpMY+S/gEdzjfWzjSYLDvzcQRa+24wIEWt thqw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUkz+PK/UVCxj3bL9FGukp5HzOqL6uN1tUnBH9+lRpQfXhZ49gd CLNmKFZ7EoTux5idS+mqtOYj9rFcC1qwc3rza4zHkg== 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: linux-edac-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-edac@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?