Re: [PATCH v10 0/9] Linear Address Masking (LAM) KVM Enabling

[Zeng Guang <guang.zeng@intel.com>]

On 8/18/2023 9:53 PM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 18, 2023, Binbin Wu wrote:
>> On 8/17/2023 5:17 PM, Binbin Wu wrote:
>>> On 8/17/2023 6:25 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Jul 19, 2023, Binbin Wu wrote:
>>>>> Binbin Wu (7):
>>>>>     KVM: x86/mmu: Use GENMASK_ULL() to define __PT_BASE_ADDR_MASK
>>>>>     KVM: x86: Add & use kvm_vcpu_is_legal_cr3() to check CR3's legality
>>>>>     KVM: x86: Use KVM-governed feature framework to track "LAM enabled"
>>>>>     KVM: x86: Virtualize CR3.LAM_{U48,U57}
>>>>>     KVM: x86: Introduce get_untagged_addr() in kvm_x86_ops and
>>>>> call it in
>>>>>       emulator
>>>>>     KVM: VMX: Implement and wire get_untagged_addr() for LAM
>>>>>     KVM: x86: Untag address for vmexit handlers when LAM applicable
>>>>>
>>>>> Robert Hoo (2):
>>>>>     KVM: x86: Virtualize CR4.LAM_SUP
>>>>>     KVM: x86: Expose LAM feature to userspace VMM
>>>> Looks good, just needs a bit of re-organination.  Same goes for the
>>>> LASS series.
>>>>
>>>> For the next version, can you (or Zeng) send a single series for LAM
>>>> and LASS?
>>>> They're both pretty much ready to go, i.e. I don't expect one to
>>>> hold up the other
>>>> at this point, and posting a single series will reduce the
>>>> probability of me
>>>> screwing up a conflict resolution or missing a dependency when applying.
>>>>
>> Hi Sean,
>> Do you still prefer a single series for LAM and LASS  for the next version
>> when we don't need to rush for v6.6?
> Yes, if it's not too much trouble on your end.  Since the two have overlapping
> prep work and concepts, and both series are in good shape, my strong preference
> is to grab them at the same time.  I would much rather apply what you've tested
> and reduce the probability of messing up any conflicts.
>
>
>
Hi Sean,
One more concern, KVM LASS patch has an extra dependency on kernel LASS 
series in which
enumerates lass feature bit (X86_FEATURE_LASS/X86_CR4_LASS). So far 
kernel lass patch is
still under review, as alternative we may extract relevant patch part 
along with kvm lass patch
set for a single series in case kernel lass cannot be merged before v6.7.
Do you think it OK in that way?