On Fri, Jul 29, 2022, Kai Huang wrote: > On Thu, 2022-07-28 at 22:17 +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > Adjust KVM's MMIO masks to account for the C-bit location prior to doing > > SEV(-ES) setup. A future patch will consume enable_mmio caching during > > SEV setup as SEV-ES _requires_ MMIO caching, i.e. KVM needs to disallow > > SEV-ES if MMIO caching is disabled. > > > > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c | 9 ++++++--- > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c > > index aef63aae922d..62e89db83bc1 100644 > > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c > > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c > > @@ -5034,13 +5034,16 @@ static __init int svm_hardware_setup(void) > > /* Setup shadow_me_value and shadow_me_mask */ > > kvm_mmu_set_me_spte_mask(sme_me_mask, sme_me_mask); > > > > - /* Note, SEV setup consumes npt_enabled. */ > > + svm_adjust_mmio_mask(); > > + > > + /* > > + * Note, SEV setup consumes npt_enabled and enable_mmio_caching (which > > + * may be modified by svm_adjust_mmio_mask()). > > + */ > > sev_hardware_setup(); > > If I am not seeing mistakenly, the code in latest queue branch doesn't consume > enable_mmio_caching. It is only added in your later patch. > > So perhaps adjust the comment or merge patches together? Oooh, I see what you're saying. I split the patches so that if this movement turns out to break something then bisection will point directly here, but that's a pretty weak argument since both patches are tiny. And taking patch 4 without patch 3, e.g. in the unlikely event this movement needs to be reverted, is probably worse than not having patch 4 at all, i.e. having somewhat obvious breakage is better. So yeah, I'll squash this with patch 4. Thanks!
