From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [198.175.65.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BFC4D1F09B3; Wed, 25 Feb 2026 00:18:10 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.14 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1771978691; cv=none; b=K+9Qr3+k1a9m5qlf0EdwvPIZHErQNGBa4m+cHYI7f+FrpOV26QqtYRav6MI5T2iskVzRuwYlNDMJTaE761zOf+l3Y93creCgVVhu7KL/TooP2MO/w4OsxiHUGC1PiV/T3PxmyZcIV1U6wVBAAgBHN8JLwJYar/c7PkBaYCWUNGI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1771978691; c=relaxed/simple; bh=bYVVLZqdIImz6W8bPziDXDDa2N8sm/FTjvgZPVHPdbs=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=F6BYdODVQP/p7W41qwHHDZ/U2VpJzbOgYx7FFHsGK6vRWDMkNodoWZbBsfpnhND4E9v0g1v9y8uZsIBiLGWXXEGuduKXDOvngYH24lxPHuEzBS8YXuUJdN21uSNLPpIh01HXdrgiDPlhU6VWNhfzxfumDJeap3JBXkux8XKBEfI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=O8FDCuhz; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.14 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="O8FDCuhz" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1771978690; x=1803514690; h=message-id:date:mime-version:subject:to:cc:references: from:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=bYVVLZqdIImz6W8bPziDXDDa2N8sm/FTjvgZPVHPdbs=; b=O8FDCuhzX56zLlrha6qgAZn8PBGB7xiVFbAN0m0m8FcBUxYxi9cc706L xVdpjHZdi7hy49BEbHaIiiNSgv30hlJakDgu6rtRDZ5Rv2nMJaJBa0pvl rgHw7Bwp+I3rBlOvclwSvFxdHnB/QHBN+ncQn7PTqColSl38F6X7cJLib rL0gqRlvtyw9zghUmb1P34WqHifDt47pt5itAs/azviUEv51oUg08NJ24 y1WnAXI9/SWXUg/pT1FclNoRI9Ngh0YO3b/d5A5GGSn9fPTtYb1Bua6NP o/jlvJEgIr0AjZFiuTZg20dpnv41OFe3rpKiWQfJMY1QM9u9weF4jCbv2 Q==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: jG8PDBt4SrOjOERlHyjstQ== X-CSE-MsgGUID: 28hz8W3VTMupyYAlXvVWqg== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6800,10657,11711"; a="76844697" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.21,309,1763452800"; d="scan'208";a="76844697" Received: from orviesa008.jf.intel.com ([10.64.159.148]) by orvoesa106.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 24 Feb 2026 16:18:10 -0800 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: Vs0tWiL+TOaZPAyEHQ+eUQ== X-CSE-MsgGUID: w38Ep/VeTBuLbg/Sq5cOtQ== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.21,309,1763452800"; d="scan'208";a="216075387" Received: from louislu-mobl2.ccr.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.124.240.233]) ([10.124.240.233]) by orviesa008-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 24 Feb 2026 16:18:07 -0800 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2026 08:18:07 +0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: kvm@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: TDX: Set SIGNIFCANT_INDEX flag for supported CPUIDs To: Sean Christopherson Cc: Rick P Edgecombe , Xiaoyao Li , "changyuanl@google.com" , "pbonzini@redhat.com" , Binbin Wu , Isaku Yamahata , "bp@alien8.de" , "x86@kernel.org" , "kas@kernel.org" , "hpa@zytor.com" , "mingo@redhat.com" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "dave.hansen@linux.intel.com" , "tglx@kernel.org" , "kvm@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-coco@lists.linux.dev" References: <20260223214336.722463-1-changyuanl@google.com> <213d614fe73e183a230c8f4e0c8fa1cc3d45df39.camel@intel.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Binbin Wu In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 2/25/2026 12:03 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote: > >>>> + } else { >>>> + entry->flags |= KVM_CPUID_FLAG_SIGNIFCANT_INDEX; >>>> + } >>>>   >>>> + WARN_ON_ONCE(cpuid_function_is_indexed(entry->function) != >>>> +      !!(entry->flags & >>>> KVM_CPUID_FLAG_SIGNIFCANT_INDEX)); >>> >>> It warns on leaf 0x23 for me. Is it intentional? >> >> I guess because the list in cpuid_function_is_indexed() is hard-coded >> and 0x23 is not added into the list yet. > > Yeah, I was anticipating that we'd run afoul of leaves that aren't known to > the kernel. FWIW, it looks like 0x24 is also indexed. 0x24 is there already.