[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190614142139.GH2586@zn.tnic>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2019 16:21:39 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
Cc: Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, H Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
Ravi V Shankar <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
x86 <x86@...nel.org>,
Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] x86/cpufeatures: Combine word 11 and 12 into new
scattered features word 11
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 07:14:24AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> This is wrong. KVM isn't complaining about shuffling the order of feature
> words, it's complaining that code is trying to do a reverse CPUID lookup
> to a feature that isn't in the reverse_cpuid table. Filtering out
> checks dynamically is just hiding bugs.
No no, reverse_cpuid is hardcoding our feature leafs. This is wrong as
we want to be able to change those. And reverse_cpuid[] should be able
to handle that.
KVM is complaining because he removed one leaf. He adds it later in
patch 3 as a Linux-defined leaf.
All that doesn't matter for KVM - if KVM wants to do reverse lookup,
then it should handle Linux-defined leafs just fine.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists