Received: by 2002:a25:6193:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id v141csp1968569ybb; Thu, 2 Apr 2020 10:35:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypJslcfua2cH2ZvpRFfmdydJldGHpxmOQkDMNJB2Ssl12zDixRUJNAWMseVoJTm5xsSpmj30 X-Received: by 2002:aca:5194:: with SMTP id f142mr130874oib.100.1585848953332; Thu, 02 Apr 2020 10:35:53 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1585848953; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=nwVBN73QTk7kJFaK+SCjq3LI3Cw0GAIapNVG8VmsoqDgMSlzGfWXP0SR+nkRl2Lo6n lW1B7ZQmUSWjN3PLj9gqoPCYkD1xoVZsEjk16VTUa9KXRPVVK+zAqTed16CDJouZsUmk oSMom3lBzNZpSD7/7EX/6ZAv61RDuRtMb9XX6p5g5v9UVlidSRtdpggHxewLjL8eXgCs WeUuHoUSsRrLUkzRZ+rc+99oRDNZojFSGj2j8RFj6ciqTBcTfRoL+OQER3/DL7XjeQXq etqBcrGm9ZgkwrqdaYBRUaN6Z70AHBK7UnHPsKcNm/SVZHtcCFRe85PdoErAtSw0ww1E OSQA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:mime-version:message-id:date:references :in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from; bh=oHtEwV7UfbKk/qXnJsPXX2U42KwXGa9JJXq3p7jfLGU=; b=oViAxBQOX1c5AO2pmdIJodj5jxZTg5r+dFQ2S/i9YwznqFI2pHnH2oXEplqsf6QhBB jOm3KEpsvo4q5yIiQL9ZkN3o4FCe4Exn/DGKvWZaRrImBvlHK6IinFb2CsJzqIJSA5rx 9PsR6LJU1hjVuPwjn8j+27IJW7V+O27VLH0j/oGAWfcQ4Wwhm/yd/1JBsSNC+ku1P1nL T6w3gRserWCO+SX0FNW1xRnMtsDxW7KFsT8i1zOXZ9w43AXXha+MlXMZjzzdXu5oprrq MZCEa8R8cMrEmeGb3xrMxfcWo5bIQRW1nOz+rHRPSqHBLvLt8gQ/qzSC4N6T38ow2+RU +sLQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id m23si2806895ots.325.2020.04.02.10.35.36; Thu, 02 Apr 2020 10:35:53 -0700 (PDT) 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; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2389885AbgDBRew (ORCPT + 99 others); Thu, 2 Apr 2020 13:34:52 -0400 Received: from Galois.linutronix.de ([193.142.43.55]:38755 "EHLO Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2389558AbgDBRev (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Apr 2020 13:34:51 -0400 Received: from p5de0bf0b.dip0.t-ipconnect.de ([93.224.191.11] helo=nanos.tec.linutronix.de) by Galois.linutronix.de with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1jK3jg-0000Nl-Dp; Thu, 02 Apr 2020 19:34:36 +0200 Received: by nanos.tec.linutronix.de (Postfix, from userid 1000) id D0441100D52; Thu, 2 Apr 2020 19:34:35 +0200 (CEST) From: Thomas Gleixner To: Xiaoyao Li , Peter Zijlstra Cc: LKML , x86@kernel.org, "Kenneth R. Crudup" , Paolo Bonzini , Jessica Yu , Fenghua Yu , Nadav Amit , Thomas Hellstrom , Sean Christopherson , Tony Luck , Steven Rostedt Subject: Re: [patch v2 1/2] x86,module: Detect VMX modules and disable Split-Lock-Detect In-Reply-To: <2d2140c4-712a-2f8d-cde7-b3e64c28b204@intel.com> References: <20200402123258.895628824@linutronix.de> <20200402124205.242674296@linutronix.de> <20200402152340.GL20713@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <725ca48f-8194-658e-0296-65d4368803b5@intel.com> <20200402162548.GH20730@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <2d2140c4-712a-2f8d-cde7-b3e64c28b204@intel.com> Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2020 19:34:35 +0200 Message-ID: <87pncpn650.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Linutronix-Spam-Score: -1.0 X-Linutronix-Spam-Level: - X-Linutronix-Spam-Status: No , -1.0 points, 5.0 required, ALL_TRUSTED=-1,SHORTCIRCUIT=-0.0001 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Xiaoyao Li writes: > On 4/3/2020 12:25 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 12:20:08AM +0800, Xiaoyao Li wrote: >>> And, shouldn't we clear X86_FEATURE_SPLIT_LOCK_DETECT flag? >> >> Don't think you can do that this late. Also, the hardware has the MSR >> and it works, it's just that we should not. >> > > Actually, I agree to keep this flag. > > But, during the previous patch review, tglx wants to make > > sld_off = no X86_FEATURE_SPLIT_LOCK_DETECT > > I'm not sure whether he still insists on it now. Obviously I cant. > I really want to decouple sld_off and X86_FEATURE_SPLIT_LOCK_DETECT. > So if X86_FEATURE_SPLIT_LOCK_DETECT is set, we can virtualize and expose > it to guest even when host is sld_off. Can we first have a sane solution for the problem at hand? Aside of that I'm still against the attempt of proliferating crap, i.e. disabling it because the host is triggering it and then exposing it to guests. The above does not change my mind in any way. This proposal is still wrong. Thanks, tglx