linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC] kvm: x86: Expose AVX512

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <7d304ae7-73c0-d2a9-cd3e-975941a91266@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 24 Jun 2019 10:33:37 +0200
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Jing Liu <jing2.liu@...ux.intel.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jing2.liu@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] kvm: x86: Expose AVX512_BF16 feature to guest

On 24/06/19 05:10, Jing Liu wrote:
>> What do you think about @index in current function? Does it mean, we
>> need put cpuid from index to max subleaf to @entry[i]? If so, the logic
>> seems as follows,
>>
>> if (index == 0) {
>>      // Put subleaf 0 into @entry
>>      // Put subleaf 1 into @entry[1]
>> } else if (index < entry->eax) {
>>      // Put subleaf 1 into @entry
>> } else {
>>      // Put all zero into @entry
>> }
>>
>> But this seems not identical with other cases, for current caller
>> function. Or we can simply ignore @index in 0x07 and just put all
>> possible subleaf info back?

There are indeed quite some cleanups to be made there.  Let me post a
series as soon as possible, and you can base your work on it.

Paolo