[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [PATCH 4/4] amd/virt_ssbd: add to max HVM policy when SSB_NO is available
On 11.10.2022 18:02, Roger Pau Monne wrote: > --- a/xen/arch/x86/cpu/amd.c > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/cpu/amd.c > @@ -814,7 +814,9 @@ void amd_set_ssbd(bool enable) > wrmsr(MSR_VIRT_SPEC_CTRL, enable ? SPEC_CTRL_SSBD : 0, 0); > else if ( amd_legacy_ssbd ) > core_set_legacy_ssbd(enable); > - else > + else if ( cpu_has_ssb_no ) { Nit: While already an issue in patch 1, it is actually the combination of inner blanks and brace placement which made me spot the style issue here. > + /* Nothing to do. */ How is the late placement here in line with ... > --- a/xen/arch/x86/cpuid.c > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/cpuid.c > @@ -558,11 +558,16 @@ static void __init calculate_hvm_max_policy(void) > __clear_bit(X86_FEATURE_IBRSB, hvm_featureset); > __clear_bit(X86_FEATURE_IBRS, hvm_featureset); > } > - else if ( boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_AMD_SSBD) ) > + else if ( boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_AMD_SSBD) || > + boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_SSB_NO) ) > /* > * If SPEC_CTRL.SSBD is available VIRT_SPEC_CTRL.SSBD can be exposed > * and implemented using the former. Expose in the max policy only as > * the preference is for guests to use SPEC_CTRL.SSBD if available. > + * > + * Allow VIRT_SSBD in the max policy if SSB_NO is exposed for > migration > + * compatibility reasons. If SSB_NO is present setting > + * VIRT_SPEC_CTRL.SSBD is a no-op. > */ > __set_bit(X86_FEATURE_VIRT_SSBD, hvm_featureset); ... this comment addition talking about "no-op"? Jan
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |