On Wed, Jul 07, 2021, Brijesh Singh wrote:
Version 2 of the GHCB specification introduced advertisement of features
that are supported by the Hypervisor.
Now that KVM supports version 2 of the GHCB specification, bump the
maximum supported protocol version.
Heh, the changelog doesn't actually state that it's adding support for said
advertisement of features. It took me a few seconds to figure out what the
patch was doing, even though it's quite trivial in the end.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
Signed-off-by: Brijesh Singh <redacted>
---
arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/svm.h | 4 ++--
arch/x86/kvm/svm/sev.c | 14 ++++++++++++++
arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.h | 3 ++-
3 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/svm.h b/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/svm.h
index 9aaf0ab386ef..ba4137abf012 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/svm.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/svm.h
@@ -115,7 +115,7 @@
#define SVM_VMGEXIT_AP_CREATE_ON_INIT 0
#define SVM_VMGEXIT_AP_CREATE 1
#define SVM_VMGEXIT_AP_DESTROY 2
-#define SVM_VMGEXIT_HYPERVISOR_FEATURES 0x8000fffd
+#define SVM_VMGEXIT_HV_FT 0x8000fffd
This is fixing up commit 3 from Part1, though I think it can and should be
omitted from that patch entirely since it's not relevant to the guest, only to
KVM.
And FWIW, I like the verbose name, though it looks like Boris requested the
shorter names for the guest. Can we keep the verbose form for KVM-only VMEGXIT
name? Hyper-V has mostly laid claim to "HV", and feature is not the first thing
that comes to mind for "FT".
#define SVM_VMGEXIT_UNSUPPORTED_EVENT 0x8000ffff