[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <76dcb466-225b-760b-525b-6aa8f5c8aae8@linux.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2021 17:39:47 -0700
From: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan
<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc: Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.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>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC v2-fix-v2 2/2] x86/tdx: Ignore WBINVD instruction for TDX
guest
On 5/24/2021 4:42 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 5/24/21 4:32 PM, Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan wrote:
>> Functionally only DMA devices can notice a side effect from
>> WBINVD's cache flushing.
> This seems to be trying to make some kind of case that the only visible
> effects from WBINVD are for DMA devices. That's flat out wrong. It
> might be arguable that none of the other cases exist in a TDX guest, but
> it doesn't excuse making such a broad statement without qualification.
We're describing a few sentences down that guests run with EPT
IgnorePAT=1, which is the qualification.
>
> Just grep in the kernel for a bunch of reasons this is wrong.
>
> Where did this come from?
Again the logic is very simple: TDX guest code is (mostly) about
replacing KVM code with in kernel code, so we're just doing the same as
KVM. You cannot get any more proven than that.
-Andi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists