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:   Thu, 17 Nov 2022 20:33:44 +0000
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc:     Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@redhat.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Sandipan Das <sandipan.das@amd.com>,
        Daniel Sneddon <daniel.sneddon@linux.intel.com>,
        Jing Liu <jing2.liu@intel.com>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@kernel.org>,
        Wyes Karny <wyes.karny@amd.com>,
        Babu Moger <babu.moger@amd.com>,
        Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>, x86@kernel.org,
        Santosh Shukla <santosh.shukla@amd.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/13] KVM: SVM: Add VNMI bit definition
Message-ID: <Y3aaqJo7ckdUsyde@google.com>
References: <20221117143242.102721-1-mlevitsk@redhat.com>
 <20221117143242.102721-7-mlevitsk@redhat.com>
 <Y3ZHKVq8enyxJmVu@zn.tnic>
 <Y3Zkkc1edwYtpk+N@google.com>
 <Y3ZqOvg2mlBmXAlW@zn.tnic>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Y3ZqOvg2mlBmXAlW@zn.tnic>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Nov 17, 2022, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 04:42:57PM +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > Why? This is rarely run code, won't cpu_feature_enabled()
> > unnecessarily require patching?
> 
> Because we want one single interface to test X86_FEATURE flags. And
> there's no need for the users to know whether it wants patching or not -
> we simply patch *everywhere* and that's it.
> 
> > And while we're on the topic... https://lore.kernel.org/all/Y22IzA9DN%2FxYWgWN@google.com
> 
> Because static_ or boot_ is not relevant to the user - all she
> wants to know is whether a cpu feature has been enabled. Thus
> cpu_feature_enabled().
> 
> And yes, at the time I protested a little about unnecessary patching.
> And tglx said "Why not?". And I had no good answer to that. So we can
> just as well patch *everywhere*.

Ah, I missed that memo.


Paolo,

Since it sounds like static_cpu_has() is going the way of the dodo, and ditto for
boot_cpu_has() except for flows that don't play nice with patching (none of which
are in KVM), should we do a KVM-wide conversion to cpu_feature_enabled() at some
point in the near future?