From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx3-rdu2.redhat.com ([66.187.233.73] helo=mx1.redhat.com) by Galois.linutronix.de with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1fRLY8-0000Tq-9r for speck@linutronix.de; Fri, 08 Jun 2018 19:51:44 +0200 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 68EB04022931 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2018 17:51:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from treble (ovpn-120-53.rdu2.redhat.com [10.10.120.53]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3DE2D2026DFD for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2018 17:51:38 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2018 12:51:36 -0500 From: Josh Poimboeuf Subject: [MODERATED] Re: Is: Tim, Q to you. Was:Re: [PATCH 1/2] L1TF KVM 1 Message-ID: <20180608175136.rxj55bwe2eutebge@treble> References: <99e589e5-6385-2e3e-aac4-6a5d6955a505@redhat.com> <0263eeab-7c6a-20e4-324a-135b97bc1691@amazon.com> <20180604131133.GB7296@char.us.oracle.com> <55fb75e8-d57f-29b3-5255-3be0677c2452@linux.intel.com> <20180607232441.GH7220@tassilo.jf.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: speck@linutronix.de List-ID: On Fri, Jun 08, 2018 at 06:29:16PM +0200, speck for Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Thu, 7 Jun 2018, speck for Andi Kleen wrote: > > Also the recommended mitigation is really to use the MSR write instead > > of the magic software sequence. Perhaps it would be best to > > just remove the software sequence. Updated microcode is needed in > > any case, it doesn't make sense to try to support partially updated systems. > > ACK. That makes sense. In that case do we need plumbing to expose the L1 cache flush MSR to the guest, for nested virt support? -- Josh