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;
Received-SPF: None (esa1.hc3370-68.iphmx.com: no sender
  authenticity information available from domain of
  andrew.cooper3@citrix.com) identity=pra;
  client-ip=162.221.158.21; receiver=esa1.hc3370-68.iphmx.com;
  envelope-from="Andrew.Cooper3@citrix.com";
  x-sender="andrew.cooper3@citrix.com";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible
Received-SPF: Pass (esa1.hc3370-68.iphmx.com: domain of
  Andrew.Cooper3@citrix.com designates 162.221.158.21 as
  permitted sender) identity=mailfrom;
  client-ip=162.221.158.21; receiver=esa1.hc3370-68.iphmx.com;
  envelope-from="Andrew.Cooper3@citrix.com";
  x-sender="Andrew.Cooper3@citrix.com";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible; x-record-type="v=spf1";
  x-record-text="v=spf1 ip4:209.167.231.154 ip4:178.63.86.133
  ip4:195.66.111.40/30 ip4:85.115.9.32/28 ip4:199.102.83.4
  ip4:192.28.146.160 ip4:192.28.146.107 ip4:216.52.6.88
  ip4:216.52.6.188 ip4:162.221.158.21 ip4:162.221.156.83
  ip4:168.245.78.127 ~all"
Received-SPF: None (esa1.hc3370-68.iphmx.com: no sender
  authenticity information available from domain of
  postmaster@mail.citrix.com) identity=helo;
  client-ip=162.221.158.21; receiver=esa1.hc3370-68.iphmx.com;
  envelope-from="Andrew.Cooper3@citrix.com";
  x-sender="postmaster@mail.citrix.com";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible
IronPort-SDR: keMJMnWwEc2YGTwWdnv1EYpSCqsYgTk0bzau7VQQ+dosqPRz92Zls+VaIbPgf3o+d/zG7poiK8
 6rAt3JpijCZ5V/okNkvB0uMtQGboZragm7zmTMWJ9SgM0gg6RGPcJ6KWnfHaITQrenpuLCdtAf
 clCCHVub9MrIKnHyfhzcHPCNwiPeUBh2QpBYXLFt81W6y5NXO65KiKtIthxzvlXyscf4djepTC
 hc54Ee8diQA2zl51DPtTUWOaQtr5232NJnpor9lmkpUCcT6htz4LWr5WD/j0keYNECF5mdGPwd
 RfI=
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] x86,module: Detect VMX vs SLD conflicts
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>
CC:     <tglx@linutronix.de>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        <hch@infradead.org>, <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>,
        <mingo@redhat.com>, <bp@alien8.de>, <hpa@zytor.com>,
        <x86@kernel.org>, <kenny@panix.com>, <jeyu@kernel.org>,
        <rasmus.villemoes@prevas.dk>, <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        <fenghua.yu@intel.com>, <xiaoyao.li@intel.com>,
        <nadav.amit@gmail.com>, <thellstrom@vmware.com>,
        <tony.luck@intel.com>, <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>, <jannh@google.com>,
        <keescook@chromium.org>, <David.Laight@aculab.com>,
        <dcovelli@vmware.com>
References: <20200407110236.930134290@infradead.org>
 <20200407111007.352324393@infradead.org>
 <20200408170934.7238715574818f31f03e687b@kernel.org>
 <20200408095604.GR20713@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
From:   Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
Message-ID: <67d4f6d6-0ada-f899-f736-7a13434b60b9@citrix.com>
Date:   Wed, 8 Apr 2020 11:15:11 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.4.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200408095604.GR20713@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-GB
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 08/04/2020 10:56, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> +		case 0xc1: /* VMCALL */
>>> +		case 0xc2: /* VMLAUNCH */
>>> +		case 0xc3: /* VMRESUME */
>>> +		case 0xc4: /* VMXOFF */
>> 		case 0xd4:	/* VMFUNC */
> As per Andrew, VMCALL and VMFUNC are SMV, and I really only need VMX in
> this case. Including SMV is probably harmless, but I'm thinking a
> smaller function is better.

VMCALL and VMFUNC are both VMX instructions.  VMMCALL (count the M's -
yes it is a different instruction) is SVM, and I forgot VMGEXIT from the
list yesterday which is also SVM.

However, searching for them is probably not helpful.  They are all
guest-only instructions and you wouldn't expect to see them in
hypervisor code.

~Andrew