On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 11:47:15AM +0200, Jiri Denemark wrote: > On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 17:13:51 +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 10:42:38AM +0200, Jiri Denemark wrote: > > > The new virHostCPUGetMSR internal API will try to read the MSR from > > > /dev/cpu/0/msr and if it is not possible (the device does not exist or > > > libvirt is running unprivileged), it will fallback to asking KVM for the > > > MSR using KVM_GET_MSRS ioctl. > > > > Is there benefit to using /dev/cpu/0/msr, instead of always using > > /dev/kvm ? > > KVM may report some bits in the IA32_ARCH_CAPABILITIES MSR even when the > host does not set them or even support MSR at all. So for reporting host > capabilities /dev/cpu/0/msr is IMHO better. We will still get the made > up bits in the MSR via QEMU for host-model. > > For example, on my laptop which does not support IA32_ARCH_CAPABILITIES > MSR at all I get 0x8 when asking KVM, while reading /dev/cpu/0/msr > returns I/O error since the MSR does not exist. Hmm, do we need to get /dev/kvm fixed in this regard ? It seems bad that libvirt will be relying on different information about MSRs when running as root vs non-root. Could like to even more painful bugs to triage. Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :| -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
