On 18/03/2015 09:46, Stefan Bader wrote:
>
> Regardless of that, I wonder whether the below (this version untested) sound
> acceptable for upstream? At least it would make debugging much simpler. :)
>
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
> @@ -2953,8 +2953,11 @@ static __init int adjust_vmx_controls(u32 ctl_min, u32 ct
> ctl |= vmx_msr_low; /* bit == 1 in low word ==> must be one */
>
> /* Ensure minimum (required) set of control bits are supported. */
> - if (ctl_min & ~ctl)
> + if (ctl_min & ~ctl) {
> + printk(KERN_ERR "vmx: msr(%08x) does not match requirements. "
> + "req=%08x cur=%08x\n", msr, ctl_min, ctl);
> return -EIO;
> + }
>
> *result = ctl;
> return 0;
Yes, this is nice. Maybe -ENODEV.
Also, a minimal patch for Ubuntu would probably be:
@@ -2850,7 +2851,7 @@ static __init int setup_vmcs_config(struct vmcs_config *vmcs_conf)
vmx_capability.ept, vmx_capability.vpid);
}
- min = 0;
+ min = VM_EXIT_SAVE_DEBUG_CONTROLS;
#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
min |= VM_EXIT_HOST_ADDR_SPACE_SIZE;
#endif
but I don't think it's a good idea to add it to stable kernels.
Paolo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
