[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <770415c9-38d7-08fc-e255-56c168967b7c@linux.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2021 10:02:53 -0700
From: "Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan"
<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@...el.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Kirill Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <knsathya@...nel.org>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Raj Ashok <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] x86/tdx: Handle MWAIT, MONITOR and WBINVD
On 3/30/21 8:10 AM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 3/30/21 8:00 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
>>>> + /* MWAIT is not supported in TDX platform, so suppress it */
>>>> + setup_clear_cpu_cap(X86_FEATURE_MWAIT);
>>> In fact, MWAIT bit returned by CPUID instruction is zero for TD guest. This
>>> is enforced by SEAM module.
>> Good point.
>>> Do we still need to safeguard it by setup_clear_cpu_cap() here?
>> I guess it doesn't hurt to do it explicitly.
>
> If this MWAIT behavior (clearing the CPUID bit) is part of the guest
> architecture, then it would also be appropriate to WARN() rather than
> silently clearing the X86_FEATURE bit.
Makes sense. It will be useful to find the problem with TDX Module.
>
--
Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy
Linux Kernel Developer
Powered by blists - more mailing lists