Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 14 Feb 2023 10:02:51 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 2/8] x86/mtrr: support setting MTRR state for software defined MTRRs | From | Juergen Gross <> |
| |
On 14.02.23 09:58, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 08:04:47AM +0100, Juergen Gross wrote: >> Okay, if you really want to dictate the allowed use cases (this seems to be > > Read upthread - TDX guests cause #VEs for MTRR accesses. #VEs which are > unneeded and should be avoided if possible.
Of course, I don't question the need for TDX guests to use the overwrite.
> >> a layering violation), but you are the maintainer of that code. > > And why are you so against catching misuses of this, which should > absolutely *not* be needed by anything else
I just don't like the idea of trying to catch all possible misuses in lower levels, at the same time introducing the need to modify those tests in case a new valid use case is popping up.
But as said, you are the maintainer, so its your final decision.
Juergen [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-keys][unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |