On Wed, Jul 07, 2021, Brijesh Singh wrote: > Version 2 of the GHCB specification introduced advertisement of features > that are supported by the Hypervisor. > > Now that KVM supports version 2 of the GHCB specification, bump the > maximum supported protocol version. Heh, the changelog doesn't actually state that it's adding support for said advertisement of features. It took me a few seconds to figure out what the patch was doing, even though it's quite trivial in the end. > Signed-off-by: Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@xxxxxxx> > --- > arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/svm.h | 4 ++-- > arch/x86/kvm/svm/sev.c | 14 ++++++++++++++ > arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.h | 3 ++- > 3 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/svm.h b/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/svm.h > index 9aaf0ab386ef..ba4137abf012 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/svm.h > +++ b/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/svm.h > @@ -115,7 +115,7 @@ > #define SVM_VMGEXIT_AP_CREATE_ON_INIT 0 > #define SVM_VMGEXIT_AP_CREATE 1 > #define SVM_VMGEXIT_AP_DESTROY 2 > -#define SVM_VMGEXIT_HYPERVISOR_FEATURES 0x8000fffd > +#define SVM_VMGEXIT_HV_FT 0x8000fffd This is fixing up commit 3 from Part1, though I think it can and should be omitted from that patch entirely since it's not relevant to the guest, only to KVM. And FWIW, I like the verbose name, though it looks like Boris requested the shorter names for the guest. Can we keep the verbose form for KVM-only VMEGXIT name? Hyper-V has mostly laid claim to "HV", and feature is not the first thing that comes to mind for "FT". > #define SVM_VMGEXIT_UNSUPPORTED_EVENT 0x8000ffff
