From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0B3FC7618D for ; Tue, 4 Apr 2023 03:15:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232940AbjDDDP6 (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Apr 2023 23:15:58 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:33124 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231546AbjDDDP4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Apr 2023 23:15:56 -0400 Received: from mga05.intel.com (mga05.intel.com [192.55.52.43]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0E2331718 for ; Mon, 3 Apr 2023 20:15:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1680578156; x=1712114156; h=message-id:date:mime-version:subject:to:cc:references: from:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=pjwfnvy686ftXesM9aWNpE0jbQU3M78kbWirZZHLAGY=; b=WkyjDxRtAwaPVSPbIzCnLrrJD/qQ9EqyYNpeWvuyWMgKaFnuTZwP2ZAP GXriFpl51Wkr2tbG1GPN8p96tRUWfuPripCZ0BA7K6eOQVrgTFtCLQGrT VP7FvZZQxRRtZ+DoRbWLo4n+BTpSacAO4wNDDBrPuGNYnw9IJ9oT0TTVZ p5WnmMSg7jgq/TyzJRW12HrogDVwgX0R/QpQcFtMNNV06gxP2oiqYdX3C DjTcgQfaeE/TpLu4BxDm/qvOeadO85ypsEkLkfhmQhjY642p8rQH+1cYT dlgg3xbMhU+hfKcKU1VzF5RDQbSntBAW5VgoB45ly6RU4g9N8S7CtHr1p A==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,10669"; a="428362438" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.98,316,1673942400"; d="scan'208";a="428362438" Received: from orsmga003.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.27]) by fmsmga105.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 03 Apr 2023 20:15:55 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,10669"; a="636353641" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.98,316,1673942400"; d="scan'208";a="636353641" Received: from binbinwu-mobl.ccr.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.254.215.140]) ([10.254.215.140]) by orsmga003-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 03 Apr 2023 20:15:53 -0700 Message-ID: <254ee5cf-be58-d33f-4b49-d2405c105a76@linux.intel.com> Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2023 11:15:50 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.9.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/7] KVM: VMX: Use is_64_bit_mode() to check 64-bit mode To: "Huang, Kai" , "Christopherson,, Sean" Cc: "kvm@vger.kernel.org" , "pbonzini@redhat.com" , "robert.hu@linux.intel.com" , "Gao, Chao" References: <20230319084927.29607-1-binbin.wu@linux.intel.com> <20230319084927.29607-3-binbin.wu@linux.intel.com> <12c4f1d3c99253f364f3945a998fdccb0ddf300f.camel@intel.com> <682d01dec42ecdb80c9d3ffa2902dea3b1d576dd.camel@intel.com> <657efa6471503ee5c430e5942a14737ff5fbee6e.camel@intel.com> <349bd65a-233e-587c-25b2-12b6031b12b6@linux.intel.com> <559ebca9-dfb9-e041-3744-5eab36f4f4c5@linux.intel.com> <71214e870df7c280e2f7ddcd264c73e3191958d9.camel@intel.com> <9d0b7b6e-9067-0ff6-c28b-358b2e39b5a8@linux.intel.com> <74a840d0042b6413963c3fd37ffb83e0a4866735.camel@intel.com> From: Binbin Wu In-Reply-To: <74a840d0042b6413963c3fd37ffb83e0a4866735.camel@intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: kvm@vger.kernel.org On 4/4/2023 11:09 AM, Huang, Kai wrote: > On Tue, 2023-04-04 at 10:45 +0800, Binbin Wu wrote: >> On 4/4/2023 9:53 AM, Huang, Kai wrote: >>> On Tue, 2023-04-04 at 09:21 +0800, Binbin Wu wrote: >>>> On 4/3/2023 7:24 PM, Huang, Kai wrote: >>>>>> Anyway, I will seperate this patch from the LAM KVM enabling patch. And >>>>>> send a patch seperately if >>>>>> needed later. >>>>>> >>>>> I think your change for SGX is still needed based on the pseudo code of ENCLS. >>>> Yes, I meant I would seperate VMX part since it is not a bug after all, >>>> SGX will still be in the patchset. >>>> >>>> >>> Shouldn't SGX part be also split out as a bug fix patch? >>> >>> Does it have anything to do with this LAM support series? >> It is related to LAM support because LAM only effective in 64-bit mode, >> so the untag action should only be done in 64-bit mode. >> >> If the SGX fix patch is not included, that means LAM untag could be >> called in compatiblity mode in SGX ENCLS handler. >> >> > Yes I got this point, and your patch 6/7 depends on it. > > But my point is this fix is needed anyway regardless the LAM support, and it > should be merged, for instance, asap as a bug fix (and CC stable perhaps) -- > while the LAM support is a feature, and can be merged at a different time frame. OK, I can seperate the patch. > > Of course just my 2cents and this is up to maintainers.