[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALMp9eTGU5edP8JsV59Sktc1_pE+MSyCXw7jFxPs6+kDKBW6iQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2025 14:04:04 -0700
From: Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, amit@...nel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, amit.shah@....com, thomas.lendacky@....com, bp@...en8.de,
tglx@...utronix.de, peterz@...radead.org, pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com,
corbet@....net, mingo@...hat.com, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, hpa@...or.com,
seanjc@...gle.com, pbonzini@...hat.com, daniel.sneddon@...ux.intel.com,
kai.huang@...el.com, sandipan.das@....com, boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com,
Babu.Moger@....com, david.kaplan@....com, dwmw@...zon.co.uk,
andrew.cooper3@...rix.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/6] x86/bugs: Use SBPB in __write_ibpb() if applicable
On Wed, Apr 2, 2025 at 11:20 AM Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> __write_ibpb() does IBPB, which (among other things) flushes branch type
> predictions on AMD. If the CPU has SRSO_NO, or if the SRSO mitigation
> has been disabled, branch type flushing isn't needed, in which case the
> lighter-weight SBPB can be used.
When nested SVM is not supported, should KVM "promote"
SRSO_USER_KERNEL_NO on the host to SRSO_NO in KVM_GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID?
Or is a Linux guest clever enough to do the promotion itself if
CPUID.80000001H:ECX.SVM[bit 2] is clear?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists