Re: [PATCH] KVM: SVM: Add a dedicated INVD intercept routine

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: SVM: Add a dedicated INVD intercept routine
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2020 16:06:31 +0200
Cc: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@xxxxxxxxx>, Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Jim Mattson <jmattson@xxxxxxxxxx>, Joerg Roedel <joro@xxxxxxxxxx>, Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@xxxxxxx>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>, Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx>, kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, x86@xxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <87zh5fcm4f.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com>
References: <16f36f9a51608758211c54564cd17c8b909372f1.1600892859.git.thomas.lendacky@amd.com> <87zh5fcm4f.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.11.0

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

References:
- [PATCH] KVM: SVM: Add a dedicated INVD intercept routine
  - From: Tom Lendacky
- Re: [PATCH] KVM: SVM: Add a dedicated INVD intercept routine
  - From: Vitaly Kuznetsov

Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] KVM: SVM: Add a dedicated INVD intercept routine
Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86/mmu: Stash 'kvm' in a local variable in kvm_mmu_free_roots()
Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] KVM: SVM: Add a dedicated INVD intercept routine
Next by thread: [PATCH] KVM: x86: Reset MMU context if guest toggles CR4.SMAP or CR4.PKE
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [KVM ARM] [KVM ia64] [KVM ppc] [Virtualization Tools] [Spice Development] [Libvirt] [Libvirt Users] [Linux USB Devel] [Linux Audio Users] [Yosemite Questions] [Linux Kernel] [Linux SCSI] [XFree86]