Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 11 Jul 2019 12:45:07 -0500
From:   Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        "Lendacky, Thomas" <Thomas.Lendacky@amd.com>,
        "x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>,
        Pu Wen <puwen@hygon.cn>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] x86: Remove X86_FEATURE_MFENCE_RDTSC
Message-ID: <20190711174507.wrwfxohzutfsgbgl@treble>
References: <d990aa51e40063acb9888e8c1b688e41355a9588.1562255067.git.jpoimboe@redhat.com>
 <45f247d2-80f5-6c8c-d11e-965a3da8a88f@amd.com>
 <4a13c6a3-a13e-d3e5-0008-41a6d47a6eff@redhat.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.1907101333250.1758@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1907101333250.1758@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 01:33:48PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Jul 2019, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > On 08/07/19 21:32, Lendacky, Thomas wrote:
> > >> AMD and Intel both have serializing lfence (X86_FEATURE_LFENCE_RDTSC).
> > >> They've both had it for a long time, and AMD has had it enabled in Linux
> > >> since Spectre v1 was announced.
> > >>
> > >> Back then, there was a proposal to remove the serializing mfence feature
> > >> bit (X86_FEATURE_MFENCE_RDTSC), since both AMD and Intel have
> > >> serializing lfence.  At the time, it was (ahem) speculated that some
> > >> hypervisors might not yet support its removal, so it remained for the
> > >> time being.
> > >>
> > >> Now a year-and-a-half later, it should be safe to remove.
> > >
> > > I vaguely remember a concern from a migration point of view, maybe? Adding
> > > Paolo to see if he has any concerns.
> > 
> > It would be a problem to remove the conditional "if
> > (boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_LFENCE_RDTSC))" from svm_get_msr_feature.  But
> > removing support for X86_FEATURE_MFENCE_RDTSC essentially amounts to
> > removing support for hypervisors that haven't been updated pre-Spectre.
> >  That's fair enough, I think.
> 
> Yes, they have other more interesting problems :)

Great.  Anyone care to give an ACK? :-)

-- 
Josh