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:   Fri, 4 Aug 2023 22:59:54 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Cc:     Weijiang Yang <weijiang.yang@intel.com>,
        Chao Gao <chao.gao@intel.com>, pbonzini@redhat.com,
        john.allen@amd.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com,
        binbin.wu@linux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 09/19] KVM:x86: Make guest supervisor states as
 non-XSAVE managed
Message-ID: <20230804205954.GS212435@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20230803042732.88515-1-weijiang.yang@intel.com>
 <20230803042732.88515-10-weijiang.yang@intel.com>
 <ZMuMN/8Qa1sjJR/n@chao-email>
 <bfc0b3cb-c17a-0ad6-6378-0c4e38f23024@intel.com>
 <ZM1jV3UPL0AMpVDI@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZM1jV3UPL0AMpVDI@google.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Aug 04, 2023 at 01:45:11PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:

> So unless I'm missing something, NAK to this approach, at least not without trying
> the kernel FPU approach, i.e. I want somelike like to PeterZ or tglx to actually
> full on NAK the kernel approach before we consider shoving a hack into KVM.

Not having fully followed things (I'll go read up), SSS is blocked on
FRED. But it is definitely on the books to do SSS once FRED is go.

So if the approach as chosen gets in the way of host kernel SS
management, that is a wee problem.