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;
Date:   Wed, 5 May 2021 15:36:47 +0000
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc:     Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@intel.com>,
        Reiji Watanabe <reijiw@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/15] KVM: VMX: Disable loading of TSX_CTRL MSR the more
 conventional way
Message-ID: <YJK7jzbihzFIkb59@google.com>
References: <20210504171734.1434054-1-seanjc@google.com>
 <20210504171734.1434054-12-seanjc@google.com>
 <08a4afca-c3cb-1999-02a6-a72440ab2214@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <08a4afca-c3cb-1999-02a6-a72440ab2214@redhat.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, May 05, 2021, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 04/05/21 19:17, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > Tag TSX_CTRL as not needing to be loaded when RTM isn't supported in the
> > host.  Crushing the write mask to '0' has the same effect, but requires
> > more mental gymnastics to understand.
> 
> This doesn't explain _why_ this is now possible.  What about:
> 
> Now that user return MSRs is always present in the list, we don't have

User return MSRs aren't always present in the list; this series doesn't change
that behavior at all.

> the problem that the TSX_CTRL MSR needs a slot vmx->guest_uret_msrs even
> if RTM is not supported in the host (and therefore there is nothing to
> enable).  Thus we can simply tag TSX_CTRL as not needing to be loaded
> instead of crushing the write mask to '0'.

Unless I'm missing something, it would have been possible to give TSX_CTRL a
slot but not load it even before this refactoring, we just missed that approach
when handling the TSX_CTRL without HLE/RTM case.  Several other MSRs rely on
this behavior, notably the SYSCALL MSRs, which are present in the list so that
the guest can read/write the MSRs, but are loaded into hardware iff the guest
has enabled SYSCALL.

All that said, I certainly have no objection to writing a longer changelog.