> > static inline u64 kvm_get_filtered_xcr0(void)
> > {
> > - return kvm_caps.supported_xcr0 & xstate_get_guest_group_perm();
> > + u64 supported_xcr0 = kvm_caps.supported_xcr0;
> > +
> > + BUILD_BUG_ON(XFEATURE_MASK_USER_DYNAMIC != XFEATURE_MASK_XTILE_DATA);
> > +
> > + if (supported_xcr0 & XFEATURE_MASK_USER_DYNAMIC) {
> > + supported_xcr0 &= xstate_get_guest_group_perm();
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * Treat XTILE_CFG as unsupported if the current process isn't
> > + * allowed to use XTILE_DATA, as attempting to set XTILE_CFG in
> > + * XCR0 without setting XTILE_DATA is architecturally illegal.
> > + */
> > + if (!(supported_xcr0 & XFEATURE_MASK_XTILE_DATA))
> > + supported_xcr0 &= XFEATURE_MASK_XTILE_CFG;
>
> should be this? supported_xcr0 &= ~XFEATURE_MASK_XTILE_CFG;
>
>
> > + }
> > + return supported_xcr0;
> > }
Also, a minor opinion: shall we use permitted_xcr0 instead of
supported_xcr0 to be consistent with other places? This way, it is
clear that supported_xcr0 is (almost) never changing. permitted_xcr0,
as its name suggested, will be subject to permission change.
