[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7df9032d-83e4-46a1-ab29-6c7973a2ab0b@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 17 May 2024 17:30:50 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>, Kai Huang <kai.huang@...el.com>
Cc: Rick P Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>,
"dmatlack@...gle.com" <dmatlack@...gle.com>,
"sagis@...gle.com" <sagis@...gle.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Yan Y Zhao <yan.y.zhao@...el.com>, Erdem Aktas <erdemaktas@...gle.com>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"isaku.yamahata@...il.com" <isaku.yamahata@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/16] KVM: x86/mmu: Introduce a slot flag to zap only
slot leafs on slot deletion
On 5/16/24 01:20, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> Hmm, a quirk isn't a bad idea. It suffers the same problems as a memslot flag,
> i.e. who knows when it's safe to disable the quirk, but I would hope userspace
> would be much, much cautious about disabling a quirk that comes with a massive
> disclaimer.
>
> Though I suspect Paolo will shoot this down too 😉
Not really, it's probably the least bad option. Not as safe as keying
it off the new machine types, but less ugly.
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists