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,URIBL_BLOCKED,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 C89BAC3A589 for ; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 16:25:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D56E2054F for ; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 16:25:57 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="FG8b5drl" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1731715AbfHOQZ4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Aug 2019 12:25:56 -0400 Received: from mail-io1-f65.google.com ([209.85.166.65]:33824 "EHLO mail-io1-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1731591AbfHOQZx (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Aug 2019 12:25:53 -0400 Received: by mail-io1-f65.google.com with SMTP id s21so293017ioa.1 for ; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 09:25:53 -0700 (PDT) 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=6grQ9ocx+IbTwjVEIDedYoYdf4O0M4fR1quq8TS70BA=; b=FG8b5drlg1DYNIfZgQ6q7wA0xgFXi0ISvlwrU2ezrkleGRnPhC6qzdm3SG0FXSCCVr 4/+1jBiqIA/aBL/u4qxHoe5NMGu0WLlajJzgMMexeGB9cwiSUIbxX3AD8h9wn7HWJqyy nPWcuORgsACRu+FkFGvFc+Xq0N50z0kcVMdR0HIF/1ABEe2wupgfPrjwsy/1OddU/DCf zGf0IW7nYz9h5AupmY/Kmz5IVJRNmQI5/hil5Rxq0MDbDjzwUixSUDBB8SC6tVLnFnoy WKvTJnuBlqoZmkhsbbW6jTzaG8lq2oyNSIlWVAJ1F3s12sbmXRTLWmpeY4SfwWJfvhtR 4/+g== 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=6grQ9ocx+IbTwjVEIDedYoYdf4O0M4fR1quq8TS70BA=; b=X24Yfz86T2Puh41Y4N85FCgWHLLTh9qWFOYYUucxfBaWiYqLzFTobFfD7JBv8bB2q8 D4WZOaVQlfCaOIWNjyzN54SbyCsmvPZn9XSPaoJxBjDHZxdydthJtqFYK4gSE7dFvQXh nATsEkfTfiHv1svt3TBZRz4mCQ6wmxZUrI32bNm7wGEPWhTYbYfIvGooB4R2ULe6dGO6 IwjKh3dos3XYdBzRQX5YvaFc4L6HRGK85Bw2hKvYqKR3lGUWfQOp5r4wu5Npc9ZdMWl3 v4WkV93HMp8CWt1pMUQyT2Y+jICa5vwxlyuXm37n3+8xxUwCzmtEBr17M1bZZaqaT5aI f4dA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAX5QZzgg/ZgChtRaok97ctwDTygqeH+7Apuv4BPUsg9sOQ4gY3o zKOkd6cLnjRFRVawB7ue5oTqNrh0e0px3s+OYxJzaw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyf9+Wim/8xYX70CueSMMJFpdBB0isWORRNM9dKAVYwLKlJdkjTd7rPjPhyK/rPq/lhMRobLGD79cfX57Cw+hI= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6638:52:: with SMTP id a18mr5943400jap.75.1565886352617; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 09:25:52 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190814070403.6588-1-weijiang.yang@intel.com> <20190814070403.6588-6-weijiang.yang@intel.com> <87a7cbapdw.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com> <20190815134329.GA11449@local-michael-cet-test> In-Reply-To: <20190815134329.GA11449@local-michael-cet-test> From: Jim Mattson Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2019 09:25:41 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND v4 5/9] KVM: VMX: Add init/set/get functions for SPP To: Yang Weijiang Cc: Vitaly Kuznetsov , kvm list , LKML , "Michael S. Tsirkin" , =?UTF-8?B?UmFkaW0gS3LEjW3DocWZ?= , yu.c.zhang@intel.com, alazar@bitdefender.com, Paolo Bonzini , Sean Christopherson Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 6:41 AM Yang Weijiang wrote: > Hi, Vitaly, > After looked into the issue and others, I feel to make SPP co-existing > with nested VM is not good, the major reason is, L1 pages protected by > SPP are transparent to L1 VM, if it launches L2 VM, probably the > pages would be allocated to L2 VM, and that will bother to L1 and L2. > Given the feature is new and I don't see nested VM can benefit > from it right now, I would like to make SPP and nested feature mutually > exclusive, i.e., detecting if the other part is active before activate one > feature,what do you think of it? > thanks! How do you propose making the features mutually exclusive?