From: Robert Hoo <robert.hu@linux.intel.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Cc: pbonzini@redhat.com, vkuznets@redhat.com, wanpengli@tencent.com,
jmattson@google.com, joro@8bytes.org, chang.seok.bae@intel.com,
kvm@vger.kernel.org, robert.hu@intel.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 02/12] x86/cpufeature: Add CPUID.19H:{EBX,ECX} cpuid leaves
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2021 11:34:01 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <69c69e29813f32d534b34c84d91f366df58eefe0.camel@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YGstqj6YH96jrlAl@google.com>
On Mon, 2021-04-05 at 15:32 +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h
> > b/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h
> > index 8f2f050..d4a883a 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h
> > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h
> > @@ -13,7 +13,7 @@
> > /*
> > * Defines x86 CPU feature bits
> > */
> > -#define NCAPINTS 19 /* N 32-bit words worth
> > of info */
> > +#define NCAPINTS 21 /* N 32-bit words worth
> > of info */
> > #define NBUGINTS 1 /* N 32-bit bug flags */
> >
> > /*
> > @@ -382,6 +382,15 @@
> > #define X86_FEATURE_CORE_CAPABILITIES (18*32+30) /* ""
> > IA32_CORE_CAPABILITIES MSR */
> > #define X86_FEATURE_SPEC_CTRL_SSBD (18*32+31) /* "" Speculative
> > Store Bypass Disable */
> >
> > +/* Intel-defined KeyLocker feature CPUID level 0x00000019 (EBX),
> > word 20*/
> > +#define X86_FEATURE_KL_INS_ENABLED (19*32 + 0) /* "" Key Locker
> > instructions */
> > +#define X86_FEATURE_KL_WIDE (19*32 + 2) /* "" Wide Key Locker
> > instructions */
> > +#define X86_FEATURE_IWKEY_BACKUP (19*32 + 4) /* "" IWKey backup
> > */
> > +
> > +/* Intel-defined KeyLocker feature CPUID level 0x00000019 (ECX),
> > word 21*/
> > +#define X86_FEATURE_IWKEY_NOBACKUP (20*32 + 0) /* "" NoBackup
> > parameter to LOADIWKEY */
> > +#define X86_FEATURE_IWKEY_RAND (20*32 + 1) /* IWKey Randomization
> > */
>
> These should probably go into a Linux-defined leaf, I'm guessing
> neither leaf
> will be anywhere near full, at least in Linux. KVM's reverse-CPUID
> code will
> likely/hopefully be gaining support for scattered leafs in the near
> future[*],
> that side of things should be a non-issue if/when this lands.
>
> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/02455fc7521e9f1dc621b57c02c52cd04ce07797.1616136308.git.kai.huang@intel.com
Yes, in my internal private tree, I have refactored code based on your
patch.
BTW, I'm thinking, what if when those new HW-defined leaves got more
occupied? will then they be moved from the Linux-defined leaves to new
truely-map-to-HW-definition leaves?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-04-06 3:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-01-25 9:06 [RFC PATCH 00/12] KVM: Support Intel KeyLocker Robert Hoo
2021-01-25 9:06 ` [RFC PATCH 01/12] x86/keylocker: Move LOADIWKEY opcode definition from keylocker.c to keylocker.h Robert Hoo
2021-01-25 9:06 ` [RFC PATCH 02/12] x86/cpufeature: Add CPUID.19H:{EBX,ECX} cpuid leaves Robert Hoo
2021-04-05 15:32 ` Sean Christopherson
2021-04-06 3:34 ` Robert Hoo [this message]
2021-01-25 9:06 ` [RFC PATCH 03/12] kvm/vmx: Introduce the new tertiary processor-based VM-execution controls Robert Hoo
2021-01-25 9:41 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2021-01-26 9:27 ` Robert Hoo
2021-02-03 6:32 ` Robert Hoo
2021-02-03 8:45 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2021-04-05 15:38 ` Sean Christopherson
2021-04-06 3:37 ` Robert Hoo
2021-01-25 9:06 ` [RFC PATCH 04/12] kvm/vmx: enable LOADIWKEY vm-exit support in " Robert Hoo
2021-01-25 9:06 ` [RFC PATCH 05/12] kvm/vmx: Add KVM support on KeyLocker operations Robert Hoo
2021-04-05 16:25 ` Sean Christopherson
2021-04-08 5:44 ` Robert Hoo
2021-01-25 9:06 ` [RFC PATCH 06/12] kvm/cpuid: Enumerate KeyLocker feature in KVM Robert Hoo
2021-01-25 9:06 ` [RFC PATCH 07/12] kvm/vmx/nested: Support new IA32_VMX_PROCBASED_CTLS3 vmx feature control MSR Robert Hoo
2021-04-05 15:44 ` Sean Christopherson
2021-04-08 5:45 ` Robert Hoo
2021-01-25 9:06 ` [RFC PATCH 08/12] kvm/vmx: Refactor vmx_compute_tertiary_exec_control() Robert Hoo
2021-04-05 15:46 ` Sean Christopherson
2021-04-08 5:45 ` Robert Hoo
2021-01-25 9:06 ` [RFC PATCH 09/12] kvm/vmx/vmcs12: Add Tertiary Exec-Control field in vmcs12 Robert Hoo
2021-01-25 9:06 ` [RFC PATCH 10/12] kvm/vmx/nested: Support tertiary VM-Exec control in vmcs02 Robert Hoo
2021-01-25 9:06 ` [RFC PATCH 11/12] kvm/vmx/nested: Support CR4.KL in nested Robert Hoo
2021-01-25 9:06 ` [RFC PATCH 12/12] kvm/vmx/nested: Enable nested LOADIWKey VM-exit Robert Hoo
2021-04-05 16:03 ` [RFC PATCH 00/12] KVM: Support Intel KeyLocker Sean Christopherson
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=69c69e29813f32d534b34c84d91f366df58eefe0.camel@linux.intel.com \
--to=robert.hu@linux.intel.com \
--cc=chang.seok.bae@intel.com \
--cc=jmattson@google.com \
--cc=joro@8bytes.org \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=robert.hu@intel.com \
--cc=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=vkuznets@redhat.com \
--cc=wanpengli@tencent.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox