[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <68707ba71f3e03d9d9a7bc5b0f592fb3cef2f776.camel@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2022 08:47:13 +0300
From: Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@...hat.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.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 Wed, 2022-03-30 at 14:07 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> 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
>
Any update on this patch? Looks like it is not upstream nor in kvm/queue.
Best regards,
Maxim Levitsky
Powered by blists - more mailing lists