[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3bdcf7c2-16dc-4bae-8595-9a4e6f2518a1@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2024 10:58:08 +1300
From: "Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@...el.com>
To: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>, "Kirill A. Shutemov"
<kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
CC: <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <x86@...nel.org>, <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
<bp@...en8.de>, <tglx@...utronix.de>, <mingo@...hat.com>, <hpa@...or.com>,
<luto@...nel.org>, <peterz@...radead.org>, <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>,
<ashish.kalra@....com>, <chao.gao@...el.com>, <bhe@...hat.com>,
<nik.borisov@...e.com>, <pbonzini@...hat.com>, <seanjc@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] x86/kexec: do unconditional WBINVD in
relocate_kernel()
On 21/03/2024 10:06 am, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> On 3/20/24 15:48, Huang, Kai wrote:
>>
>>>> Hi Tom,
>>>>
>>>> I am not aware of kexec() support status for SEV-ES/SEV-SNP guests.
>>>> Does patch 1 break them?
>>>
>>> SNP guests can kexec with some patches that are currently in process
>>> around shared to private memory conversions. ES guests can only kexec
>>> with a single vCPU. There was a recent patch series to add support
>>> for multiple vCPUs.
>>>
>>> Patch #1 doesn't break either ES or SNP because we still have an IDT
>>> and traditional kernel addressing in place, so the #VC can be handled.
>>
>> How about plain SEV guest?
>
> A plain SEV guest is fine, since WBINVD is intercepted and would just
> exit to the hypervisor (#VC doesn't happen with plain SEV).
>
> Thanks,
> Tom
>
Thanks for the info.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists