Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/11] KVM: Support guest MAXPHYADDR < host MAXPHYADDR
To:     Mohammed Gamal <mgamal@redhat.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, vkuznets@redhat.com,
        sean.j.christopherson@intel.com, wanpengli@tencent.com,
        jmattson@google.com, joro@8bytes.org, thomas.lendacky@amd.com,
        babu.moger@amd.com
References: <20200619153925.79106-1-mgamal@redhat.com>
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <87312ebb-e842-3b21-e216-916d54557319@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 19 Jun 2020 17:43:25 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200619153925.79106-1-mgamal@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 19/06/20 17:39, Mohammed Gamal wrote:
> The last 3 patches (i.e. SVM bits and patch 11) are not intended for
> immediate inclusion and probably need more discussion.
> We've been noticing some unexpected behavior in handling NPF vmexits
> on AMD CPUs (see individual patches for details), and thus we are
> proposing a workaround (see last patch) that adds a capability that
> userspace can use to decide who to deal with hosts that might have
> issues supprting guest MAXPHYADDR < host MAXPHYADDR.

I think patch 11 can be committed (more or less).  You would actually
move it to the beginning of the series and have
"allow_smaller_maxphyaddr = !enable_ept;" for VMX.  It is then changed
to "allow_smaller_maxphyaddr = true;" in "KVM: VMX: Add guest physical
address check in EPT violation and misconfig".

In fact, it would be a no-brainer to commit patch 11 in that form, so
feel free to submit it separately.

Thanks,

Paolo