[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230320224256.GFZBjhcNIgnd7I02Qr@fat_crate.local>
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2023 23:42:56 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
Cc: "Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@...el.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"Christopherson,, Sean" <seanjc@...gle.com>,
"dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"Yamahata, Isaku" <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 03/12] x86/mtrr: support setting MTRR state for
software defined MTRRs
On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 02:47:30PM +0100, Juergen Gross wrote:
> > Since this code covers TDX guest too, I think eventually it makes sense for TDX
> > guest to use this function too (to avoid #VE IIUC). If want to do that, then I
> > think TDX guest should have the same mutual understanding with *ALL* hypervisor,
> > as I am not sure what's the point of making the TDX guest's MTRR behaviour
> > depending on specific hypervisor.
>
> This series tries to fix the current fallout.
We can relax the check so that it runs on TDX too. Along with a comment
above it why it needs to run on TDX.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists