On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 05:02:19PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 07:25:51AM -0700, Fenghua Yu wrote:
> > But without this small patch, CPUID_7_EDX is 17 instead of
> > NCAPINTS(19)-1=18 in patch 0002. Of course CPUID_7_EDX is 18 correctly
> > evetually after applying
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 06:10:12PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 08:24:58AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 04:57:34PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 07:39:12AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > > KVM can't
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 08:24:58AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 04:57:34PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 07:39:12AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > KVM can't handle Linux-defined leafs without extra tricks
> >
> > and that's what
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 04:57:34PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 07:39:12AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > KVM can't handle Linux-defined leafs without extra tricks
>
> and that's what I'm proposing - an extra trick.
It's not a trick, it's bug suppression.
Try
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 07:25:51AM -0700, Fenghua Yu wrote:
> But without this small patch, CPUID_7_EDX is 17 instead of
> NCAPINTS(19)-1=18 in patch 0002. Of course CPUID_7_EDX is 18 correctly
> evetually after applying patch 0003 which add the word 12 back.
Ok, then I guess the easiest should
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 07:39:12AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> KVM can't handle Linux-defined leafs without extra tricks
and that's what I'm proposing - an extra trick.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 04:21:39PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 07:14:24AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > This is wrong. KVM isn't complaining about shuffling the order of feature
> > words, it's complaining that code is trying to do a reverse CPUID lookup
> > to
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 04:26:11PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 07:15:20AM -0700, Fenghua Yu wrote:
> > Adding this small patch into patch 0002 will solve the build errors without
> > changing the build checks.
>
> There's no need for that if you remove the BUILD_BUG_ON
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 07:15:20AM -0700, Fenghua Yu wrote:
> Adding this small patch into patch 0002 will solve the build errors without
> changing the build checks.
There's no need for that if you remove the BUILD_BUG_ON checks first.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Good mailing practices for
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 07:14:24AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 03:41:23PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > + Radim and Paolo. See upthread for context.
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 06:17:02AM -0700, Fenghua Yu wrote:
> > > > Alternatively - and what I think is
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 07:14:24AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> This is wrong. KVM isn't complaining about shuffling the order of feature
> words, it's complaining that code is trying to do a reverse CPUID lookup
> to a feature that isn't in the reverse_cpuid table. Filtering out
>
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 03:41:23PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> + Radim and Paolo. See upthread for context.
>
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 06:17:02AM -0700, Fenghua Yu wrote:
> > > Alternatively - and what I think is the better solution - would be to
> > > remove those BUILD_BUG_ONs in
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 06:51:05AM -0700, Fenghua Yu wrote:
> CPUID_7_1_EAX is defined in patch 0003. Should I combine patch 0002 and 0003
> into one patch?
That was just an example diff. Generally, patches should do one logical
thing. In this case, I'd suggest you make the kvm change the first
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 03:41:23PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> + Radim and Paolo. See upthread for context.
>
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 06:17:02AM -0700, Fenghua Yu wrote:
> > > Alternatively - and what I think is the better solution - would be to
> > > remove those BUILD_BUG_ONs in
+ Radim and Paolo. See upthread for context.
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 06:17:02AM -0700, Fenghua Yu wrote:
> > Alternatively - and what I think is the better solution - would be to
> > remove those BUILD_BUG_ONs in x86_feature_cpuid and filter out the
> > Linux-defined leafs dynamically. This way
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 02:27:50PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 01:44:10PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 01:51:03PM -0700, Fenghua Yu wrote:
> > > It's a waste for the four X86_FEATURE_CQM_* features to occupy two
> > > pure feature bits
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 01:44:10PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 01:51:03PM -0700, Fenghua Yu wrote:
> > It's a waste for the four X86_FEATURE_CQM_* features to occupy two
> > pure feature bits words. To better utilize feature words, re-define
> > word 11 to host
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 01:51:03PM -0700, Fenghua Yu wrote:
> It's a waste for the four X86_FEATURE_CQM_* features to occupy two
> pure feature bits words. To better utilize feature words, re-define
> word 11 to host scattered features and move the four X86_FEATURE_CQM_*
> features into word 11.
It's a waste for the four X86_FEATURE_CQM_* features to occupy two
pure feature bits words. To better utilize feature words, re-define
word 11 to host scattered features and move the four X86_FEATURE_CQM_*
features into word 11. More scattered features can be added in word 11
in the future.
KVM
19 matches
Mail list logo
