Re: Reserved bits and commit x86/sev-es: Set x86_virt_bits to the correct value straight away, instead of a two-phase approach

From: Jacob Xu
Date: Tue Jan 30 2024 - 16:44:38 EST

Next message: Stefan Berger: "[PATCH 5/5] evm: Enforce signatures on unsupported filesystem for EVM_INIT_X509"
Previous message: Sasha Levin: "Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 6.7 036/108] bnxt_en: Add 5760X (P7) PCI IDs"
In reply to: Jacob Xu: "Re: Reserved bits and commit x86/sev-es: Set x86_virt_bits to the correct value straight away, instead of a two-phase approach"
Next in thread: Tom Lendacky: "Re: Reserved bits and commit x86/sev-es: Set x86_virt_bits to the correct value straight away, instead of a two-phase approach"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Oops, I left out one of my questions (besides for the chime-in on fix).

What's the consequence of having this field un-adjusted? We noticed it's zero for milan but non-zero on Genoa.

Jacob

Next message: Stefan Berger: "[PATCH 5/5] evm: Enforce signatures on unsupported filesystem for EVM_INIT_X509"
Previous message: Sasha Levin: "Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 6.7 036/108] bnxt_en: Add 5760X (P7) PCI IDs"
In reply to: Jacob Xu: "Re: Reserved bits and commit x86/sev-es: Set x86_virt_bits to the correct value straight away, instead of a two-phase approach"
Next in thread: Tom Lendacky: "Re: Reserved bits and commit x86/sev-es: Set x86_virt_bits to the correct value straight away, instead of a two-phase approach"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]