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 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36129C2BA4C for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2022 17:48:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S243932AbiAZRsQ (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Jan 2022 12:48:16 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:49476 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S237368AbiAZRsN (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Jan 2022 12:48:13 -0500 Received: from mail-pl1-x62e.google.com (mail-pl1-x62e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::62e]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5C824C061747 for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2022 09:48:13 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pl1-x62e.google.com with SMTP id i1so227533pla.9 for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2022 09:48:13 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20210112; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=cNfxPUvWvaI1vHO/jmsIjiSEzNXExUCiFtH31cxBIdo=; b=LoqmHXH523JnCj+p+8Rc/S9F5Y06QO7Q0xw2slJ2Ei/D6SbNPbbHBQAMEnxOcutBHB Ju0IJZE4f2IWVpl2YW5W0bRsCRXRv5ANtlQf28JmbFRXOV5kbZY/4yUwqxOWbNHqKf+l lDbZZnOjZ08qpJVMISJiLzXgNjxUCG+yQhQ7K+aLI3qAWKv0i70R+zlADzFYVsICutYJ r2iPLS0593bUYMoURAqZxpeVu+m1XvDfZECG6CC6ifVRRXXg+keDo3vfkqieMtuaGX8E ifbtkzcQOeoVoQhzurv50K5samEA0tvwrl1DY5HO2RrhmkfavJJr0eB2WEHRl+BMVLzy m4Ug== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=cNfxPUvWvaI1vHO/jmsIjiSEzNXExUCiFtH31cxBIdo=; b=ZWdEX4pKAeNemMZ9/pjufaY4AY+kqwmkqzW7amgkG2ayRCzf16TZMcz7iVuC30hDdM Oi4+SCoW4e1EJHyFbZ4MV7bpM256aVFwibSW2wP6HTi9J/aig9n5Bj8Qv86TLUZRl7ez uI6Be7Cri+UYixQpIiesna0hnwFglIrGmYZKmQMfRefyrIy7N2LHI8lhF+L+nA8WzQ3n oXerCFQ7G3ammftZamYr9Rq+5LfvlTRKWTRfcGAaGBcP6jsHHcYEiow9jrB7235u6lz1 Nd3gvMszKUUQsX88fl30aXtgd6XMsKt3VBKqNnsDLvSoom7FivDleuBrqCcV2E19qTFT ZSMw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533IggXzBRM+Y2Xj/0mwtwtw8IpXPcyiugVUJdidz36oF9BeAhlh eBZrWbCSr7qACqjnaO8b92yPHw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxwsiEqrNgJNlq8u/NfwI/GMmXVNl3SBs8rnKUQWQw1WWtgCuYRSuQeqhARV4DBKFuSYR7tNQ== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:ab91:: with SMTP id n17mr915pjq.238.1643219292505; Wed, 26 Jan 2022 09:48:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from google.com (157.214.185.35.bc.googleusercontent.com. [35.185.214.157]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id k12sm2822797pfc.107.2022.01.26.09.48.11 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 26 Jan 2022 09:48:11 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2022 17:48:08 +0000 From: Sean Christopherson To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: Vitaly Kuznetsov , Wanpeng Li , Jim Mattson , Joerg Roedel , kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Xiaoyao Li , Like Xu Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] KVM: x86: XSS and XCR0 fixes Message-ID: References: <20220126172226.2298529-1-seanjc@google.com> <3e978189-4c9a-53c3-31e7-c8ac1c51af31@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3e978189-4c9a-53c3-31e7-c8ac1c51af31@redhat.com> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jan 26, 2022, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 1/26/22 18:22, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > For convenience, Like's patch split up and applied on top of Xiaoyao. > > Tagged all for @stable, probably want to (retroactively?) get Xiaoyao's > > patch tagged too? > > Like Xu (2): > > KVM: x86: Update vCPU's runtime CPUID on write to MSR_IA32_XSS > > KVM: x86: Sync the states size with the XCR0/IA32_XSS at, any time > > > > Xiaoyao Li (1): > > KVM: x86: Keep MSR_IA32_XSS unchanged for INIT > > > > arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 6 +++--- > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > > > base-commit: e2e83a73d7ce66f62c7830a85619542ef59c90e4 > > Queued, though I'll note that I kinda disagree with the stable@ marking of > patch 1 (and therefore with the patch order) as it has no effect in > practice. Hmm, that's not a given, is it? E.g. the guest can configure XSS early on and then expect the configured value to live across INIT-SIPI-SIPI. I agree it's highly unlikely for any guest to actually do that, but I don't like assuming all guests will behave a certain way.