[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2019 10:27:21 -0800
From: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
To: Liran Alon <liran.alon@...cle.com>
Cc: Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Tony W Wang-oc <TonyWWang-oc@...oxin.com>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kvm list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, linux-edac@...r.kernel.org,
Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK"
<linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 11/19] x86/cpu: Print VMX flags in /proc/cpuinfo using
VMX_FEATURES_*
On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 08:04:19PM +0200, Liran Alon wrote:
>
>
> > On 12 Dec 2019, at 19:57, Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 9:53 AM Liran Alon <liran.alon@...cle.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Why should CPU VMX features be treated differently than standard CPUID deduced features?
> >
> > Do we have the right Intel people on the recipient list to answer this
> > question? Presumably, Intel felt that this information should be
> > available in supervisor mode only.
> >
> > Sean?
>
> Good question. Probably because it just makes sense that Ring3 will never need to use
> this info as all VMX instructions are privileged. i.e. Can only be executed in Ring0.
I highly doubt ring0 vs. ring3 was a motivating factor. I suspect the MSR
interface is primarily driven by VMX's allowed-0 vs. allowed-1 behavior,
which would be awkward to encode in CPUID. Reporting via MSR also likely
provided more flexibility for updating/fixing CPU behavior, e.g. patching
the RDMSR hook is likely far easier than patching CPUID.
Even if the architects intended the information to be supervisor-only,
that's just their opinion, no?
> De-facto in KVM we have discovered this assumption to be problematic BTW,
> as KVM created an interface to query VMX MSRs values to properly define the requested
> vCPU model. :P (See kvm_get_msr_feature())
Powered by blists - more mailing lists