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] KVM: SVM: Add a dedicated INVD intercept routine
To:     Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>
Cc:     Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
        Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@amd.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <16f36f9a51608758211c54564cd17c8b909372f1.1600892859.git.thomas.lendacky@amd.com>
 <87zh5fcm4f.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com>
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <26425c1b-a56d-bb52-109a-ab92eeb2c084@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 24 Sep 2020 16:06:31 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <87zh5fcm4f.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 24/09/20 15:58, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> does it sill make sense to intercept INVD when we just skip it? Would it
> rather make sense to disable INVD intercept for SEV guests completely?

If we don't intercept the processor would really invalidate the cache,
that is certainly not what we want.

Paolo