[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <16d89e09-fbfc-4a08-00a6-40cfb4776018@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 16:00:43 -0500
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>
Cc: KarimAllah Ahmed <karahmed@...zon.com>,
KarimAllah Ahmed <karahmed@...zon.de>,
kvm list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Asit Mallick <asit.k.mallick@...el.com>,
Arjan Van De Ven <arjan.van.de.ven@...el.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Jun Nakajima <jun.nakajima@...el.com>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 4/5] KVM: VMX: Allow direct access to
MSR_IA32_SPEC_CTRL
On 31/01/2018 15:54, Jim Mattson wrote:
> You seem to be making the assumption that there is one L2. What if
> there are 100 L2s, and only one has write-access to IA32_SPEC_CTRL? Or
> what if there once was such an L2, but it's been gone for months? The
> current mechanism penalizes *all* L2s if any L2, ever, has
> write-access to IA32_SPEC_CTRL.
Yes, but how would moving the field into struct loaded_vmcs do anything?
Only vmon/vmoff would change anything in vmx->nested.vmcs02.
Even then, L1 vmexits will also be penalized because L1 has probably
done an RDMSR/WRMSR on L2->L1 vmexit. So I don't think it's an issue?
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists