On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 3:28 PM, David Matlack <dmatlack@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 2:11 PM, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 23/11/2016 23:07, David Matlack wrote:
>>> A downside of this scheme is we'd have to remember to update
>>> nested_vmx_cr4_fixed1_update() before giving VMs new CPUID bits. If we
>>> forget, a VM could end up with different values for CR{0,4}_FIXED0 for
>>> the same CPUID depending on which version of KVM you're running on.
I've realized my concern here doesn't make sense. Such a VM would
likely fail to enter VMX operation, or #GP (unexpectedly) at some
point later. Linux, for example, does not appear to consult
MSR_IA32_VMX_CR4_FIXED1 when determining which bits of CR4 it can use
(regardless of whether it is in VMX operation or not).
>>
>> If userspace doesn't obey KVM_GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID, all bets are off
>> anyway, so I don't think it's a big deal. However, if you want to make
>> it generated by userspace, that would be fine as well!
>
> Ok let's generate them in userspace.
I'm more inclined to generate them in the kernel, given the above.
--
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
