[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3520cd7f-0e60-b140-9fd3-032ddb6778b5@suse.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2023 10:02:51 +0100
From: Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
lists@...dbynature.de, mikelley@...rosoft.com,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/8] x86/mtrr: support setting MTRR state for software
defined MTRRs
On 14.02.23 09:58, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 08:04:47AM +0100, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> Okay, if you really want to dictate the allowed use cases (this seems to be
>
> Read upthread - TDX guests cause #VEs for MTRR accesses. #VEs which are
> unneeded and should be avoided if possible.
Of course, I don't question the need for TDX guests to use the overwrite.
>
>> a layering violation), but you are the maintainer of that code.
>
> And why are you so against catching misuses of this, which should
> absolutely *not* be needed by anything else
I just don't like the idea of trying to catch all possible misuses in
lower levels, at the same time introducing the need to modify those
tests in case a new valid use case is popping up.
But as said, you are the maintainer, so its your final decision.
Juergen
Download attachment "OpenPGP_0xB0DE9DD628BF132F.asc" of type "application/pgp-keys" (3099 bytes)
Download attachment "OpenPGP_signature" of type "application/pgp-signature" (496 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists