[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200623121237.GC14101@suse.de>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2020 14:12:37 +0200
From: Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Tom Lendacky <Thomas.Lendacky@....com>,
Mike Stunes <mstunes@...are.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Juergen Gross <JGross@...e.com>,
Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
kvm list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@...are.com>,
Linux Virtualization <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>
Subject: Re: Should SEV-ES #VC use IST? (Re: [PATCH] Allow RDTSC and RDTSCP
from userspace)
On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 01:50:14PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> If SNP is the sole reason #VC needs to be IST, then I'd strongly urge
> you to only make it IST if/when you try and make SNP happen, not before.
It is not the only reason, when ES guests gain debug register support
then #VC also needs to be IST, because #DB can be promoted into #VC
then, and as #DB is IST for a reason, #VC needs to be too.
Besides that, I am not a fan of delegating problems I already see coming
to future-Joerg and future-Peter, but if at all possible deal with them
now and be safe later.
Regards,
Joerg
Powered by blists - more mailing lists