[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <88238847-7598-19ad-9048-053387f5ee6c@suse.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2023 07:01:40 +0100
From: Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
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 20.03.23 23:42, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> 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.
>
Okay, fine with me.
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