[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87h61cquww.ffs@tglx>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2025 21:58:55 +0200
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>, Peter Zijlstra
<peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, "Ahmed
S. Darwish" <darwi@...utronix.de>, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb+git@...gle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, Ard Biesheuvel
<ardb@...nel.org>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Brian
Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>, "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/6] x86/cpu: Use a new feature flag for 5 level paging
On Thu, May 22 2025 at 08:08, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Thu, May 22, 2025, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Wed, May 21, 2025 at 05:23:37PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>
>> > 4) Drivers having access to CPUID is just wrong. We've had issues
>> > with that in the past because drivers evaluated CPUID themself and
>> > missed that the core code had stuff disabled.
>>
>> I had this patch that read the module instructions and failed loading if
>> they used 'fancy' instructions. Do you want me to revive that?
Once we have the new infrastructure in place....
> Unless you want to grant exceptions, that's not going to fly for KVM. KVM makes
> heavy use of CPUID, the consumption/output of which is firmly entrenched in KVM's
> ABI.
If there is a full in memory copy of all CPUID leafs, then what needs KVM beyond
reading it from there?
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists