[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <27670a35-c67e-726f-f03f-9cf2eae83523@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2022 14:07:10 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@...hat.com>
Cc: kvm@...r.kernel.org, Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Suravee Suthikulpanit <suravee.suthikulpanit@....com>,
x86@...nel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] KVM: x86: avoid loading a vCPU after .vm_destroy was
called
On 3/30/22 02:27, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> Rather than split kvm_free_vcpus(), can we instead move the call to svm_vm_destroy()
> by adding a second hook, .vm_teardown(), which is needed for TDX? I.e. keep VMX
> where it is by using vm_teardown, but effectively move SVM?
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/1fa2d0db387a99352d44247728c5b8ae5f5cab4d.1637799475.git.isaku.yamahata@intel.com
I'd rather do that only for the TDX patches.
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists