[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d8078f5d-735c-2b0f-98eb-663be2118762@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2021 15:11:57 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan
<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
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>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/1] x86/tdx: Handle MWAIT, MONITOR and WBINVD
On 3/31/21 3:06 PM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> I've no objection to a nice message in the #VE handler. What I'm objecting to
> is sanity checking the CPUID model provided by the TDX module. If we don't
> trust the TDX module to honor the spec, then there are a huge pile of things
> that are far higher priority than MONITOR/MWAIT.
In other words: Don't muck with CPUID or the X86_FEATURE at all. Don't
check it to comply with the spec. If something doesn't comply, we'll
get a #VE at *SOME* point. We don't need to do belt-and-suspenders
programming here.
That sounds sane to me.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists