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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <2a2b395b-0bad-5022-9698-9beb87f55ec6@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 24 Jun 2019 20:06:34 +0800
From:   Jing Liu <jing2.liu@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.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

Hi Paolo,

On 6/24/2019 4:33 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> 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.
> 

Thanks. I just had another mail (replying you in this serial) appending
some codes to deal with case 7. If you prefer to firstly cleanup, I can
wait for the patch then. :)

Thanks,
Jing

> Paolo
>