lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2022 10:55:49 -0700 From: Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com> To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com> Cc: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>, Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@...hat.com>, Michael Kelley <mikelley@...rosoft.com>, linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/6] KVM: x86: Introduce CPUID_8000_0007_EDX 'scattered' leaf On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 10:53 AM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2022, Jim Mattson wrote: > > Why do we need a new 'scattered' leaf? We are only using two bits in > > the first one, right? And now we're only going to use one bit in the > > second one? > > > > I thought the point of the 'scattered' leaves was to collect a bunch > > of feature bits from different CPUID leaves in a single feature word. > > > > Allocating a new feature word for one or two bits seems extravagant. > > Ah, these leafs aren't scattered from KVM's perspective. > > The scattered terminology comes from the kernel side, where the KVM-only leafs > _may_ be used to deal with features that are scattered by the kernel. But there > is no requirement that KVM-only leafs _must_ be scattered by the kernel, e.g. we > can and should use this for leafs that KVM wants to expose to the guest, but are > completely ignored by the kernel. Intel's PSFD feature flag is a good example. > > A better shortlog would be: > > KVM: x86: Add a KVM-only leaf for CPUID_8000_0007_EDX Thanks. The 'scattered' terminology seems more confusing than enlightening.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists