Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 6 Jul 2022 22:27:08 +0000
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To:     Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
Cc:     kvm@vger.kernel.org, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Anirudh Rayabharam <anrayabh@linux.microsoft.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
        Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@redhat.com>,
        linux-hyperv@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 13/28] KVM: VMX: Get rid of eVMCS specific VMX
 controls sanitization
Message-ID: <YsYMPCr3/ig0xPFj@google.com>
References: <20220629150625.238286-1-vkuznets@redhat.com>
 <20220629150625.238286-14-vkuznets@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220629150625.238286-14-vkuznets@redhat.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jun 29, 2022, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> With the updated eVMCSv1 definition, there's no known 'problematic'
> controls which are exposed in VMX control MSRs but are not present in
> eVMCSv1. Get rid of the filtering.

Ah, this patch is confusing until one realizes that this is dropping the "filtering"
for what controls/features _KVM_ uses, whereas nested_evmcs_filter_control_msr()
filters controls that are presented to L1.

Can you add something to clarify that in the changelog?