[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1518775136.7876.13.camel@infradead.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 09:58:56 +0000
From: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, tglx@...utronix.de,
x86@...nel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, arjan.van.de.ven@...el.com,
dave.hansen@...el.com
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86/speculation: Support "Enhanced IBRS" on future
CPUs
On Tue, 2018-02-13 at 11:41 +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 13/02/2018 11:36, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > > > - if the VM has IBRS_ALL, pass through the MSR when it is zero and
> > > > intercept writes when it is one (no writes should happen)
> > > >
> > > > - if the VM doesn't have IBRS_ALL, do as we are doing now, independent
> > > > of what the host spectre_v2_ibrs_all() setting is.
> > >
> > > We end up having to turn IBRS on again on vmexit then, taking care that
> > > no conditional branch can go round it. So that becomes an
> > > *unconditional* wrmsr or lfence in the vmexit path. We really don't
> > > want that.
> > >
> > Note that being able to keep it simple in KVM was basically what made
> > the difference between me tolerating IBRS_ALL as Intel currently define
> > it, and throwing my toys out of the pram (as I had done in the first
> > iterations of this patch).
>
> You have my vote. :)
I was taking that as assent to the patch... could I trouble you for an
explicit ack, please?
Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/x-pkcs7-signature" (5213 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists