On Wed, Jan 26, 2022, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 1/26/22 18:22, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > For convenience, Like's patch split up and applied on top of Xiaoyao. > > Tagged all for @stable, probably want to (retroactively?) get Xiaoyao's > > patch tagged too? > > Like Xu (2): > > KVM: x86: Update vCPU's runtime CPUID on write to MSR_IA32_XSS > > KVM: x86: Sync the states size with the XCR0/IA32_XSS at, any time > > > > Xiaoyao Li (1): > > KVM: x86: Keep MSR_IA32_XSS unchanged for INIT > > > > arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 6 +++--- > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > > > base-commit: e2e83a73d7ce66f62c7830a85619542ef59c90e4 > > Queued, though I'll note that I kinda disagree with the stable@ marking of > patch 1 (and therefore with the patch order) as it has no effect in > practice. Hmm, that's not a given, is it? E.g. the guest can configure XSS early on and then expect the configured value to live across INIT-SIPI-SIPI. I agree it's highly unlikely for any guest to actually do that, but I don't like assuming all guests will behave a certain way.
