[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALMp9eQCcy-MjB8Su+654XyL3zfR876tdh4QHUjvB7EiNjCU9A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2022 10:16:42 -0700
From: Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc: Babu Moger <babu.moger@....com>, tglx@...utronix.de,
mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de, x86@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com,
seanjc@...gle.com, vkuznets@...hat.com, wanpengli@...cent.com,
joro@...tes.org, tony.luck@...el.com, peterz@...radead.org,
kyung.min.park@...el.com, wei.huang2@....com, jgross@...e.com,
andrew.cooper3@...rix.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86: Expose Predictive Store Forwarding Disable
On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 10:13 AM Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> On 8/23/22 23:26, Jim Mattson wrote:
> > For consistency, should this feature be renamed AMD_PSFD, now that
> > Intel is enumerating PSFD with CPUID.(EAX=7,ECX=2):EDX.PSFD[bit 0]?
> > Seehttps://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/developer/articles/technical/software-security-guidance/technical-documentation/cpuid-enumeration-and-architectural-msrs.html.
> >
> > And, Paolo, why are we carrying X86_FEATURE_PSFD as a private #define
> > in KVM rather than putting it where it belongs in cpufeatures.h?
> >
>
> Borislav asked to not show psfd in /proc/cpuinfo, because Linux had
> decided not to control PSF separately; instead it just piggybacked
> on SSBD which should disable PSF as well. Honestly I disagree but
> it's not my area of maintenance.
Do we expose PSFD in KVM for the use of another popular guest OS?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists