[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230813103657.GCZNiySRVa8TcT7SAW@fat_crate.local>
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2023 12:36:57 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, David.Kaplan@....com,
Andrew.Cooper3@...rix.com, jpoimboe@...nel.org,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 07/17] x86/cpu/kvm: Provide UNTRAIN_RET_VM
On Wed, Aug 09, 2023 at 09:12:25AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> With the difference being that UNTRAIN_RET_VM uses
> X86_FEATURE_IBPB_ON_VMEXIT instead of X86_FEATURE_ENTRY_IBPB.
>
> This cures VMEXIT doing potentially unret+IBPB or double IBPB.
Can't - I have a separate flag for that and I set it only when !IBPB:
case SRSO_CMD_IBPB_ON_VMEXIT:
if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_CPU_SRSO)) {
if (!boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_ENTRY_IBPB) && has_microcode) {
setup_force_cpu_cap(X86_FEATURE_IBPB_ON_VMEXIT);
But I like the separate macro.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists