[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Ping: [PATCH v3] x86/CPUID: shrink max_{,sub}leaf fields according to actual leaf contents



On 22.04.2021 14:34, Paul Durrant wrote:
> On 22/04/2021 12:38, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 16.04.2021 15:16, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> Zapping leaf data for out of range leaves is just one half of it: To
>>> avoid guests (bogusly or worse) inferring information from mere leaf
>>> presence, also shrink maximum indicators such that the respective
>>> trailing entry is not all blank (unless of course it's the initial
>>> subleaf of a leaf that's not the final one).
>>>
>>> This is also in preparation of bumping the maximum basic leaf we
>>> support, to ensure guests not getting exposed related features won't
>>> observe a change in behavior.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
>>
>> First of all - I'm sorry Paul, I forgot to Cc you on the original
>> submission.
>>
> 
> Ok. I did notice some discussion but wasn't really paying attention.
> 
>> May I ask for an ack or otherwise for the Viridian part of this?
>> Please be sure, however, that you have seen the earlier discussion,
>> also on v2, as Roger is questioning whether the Viridian change
>> here wouldn't better be dropped.
>>
> 
> I confess that I'm not a fan of the recursive calls and I do agree with 
> Roger that limiting the leaves simply because they have zero values is 
> probably not the right thing to do and it could lead to issues with 
> Windows. I think, to be on the safe side, it's best to leave the 
> viridian code as-is.

Okay. In which case I have all needed acks, and the remaining part of
the change can go in.

Jan



 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.