OK, based on previous feedback, this patch version simply ignores any
inconsistency if a knowing and trusting user wishes.
In my case, two identical processors in stepping and version and all
others have 1 flag missing (retail vs tray version of chip), but the
next person might have another flag.
Comments?
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
index 5382b82..264870e 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
@@ -103,6 +103,9 @@ module_param_named(enable_shadow_vmcs,
enable_shadow_vmcs, bool, S_IRUGO);
static bool __read_mostly nested = 0;
module_param(nested, bool, S_IRUGO);
+static bool __read_mostly ignore_inconsistency = false;
+module_param(ignore_inconsistency, bool, S_IRUGO);
+
static u64 __read_mostly host_xss;
static bool __read_mostly enable_pml = 1;
@@ -3449,6 +3452,7 @@ static __init int setup_vmcs_config(struct
vmcs_config *vmcs_conf)
vmcs_conf->pin_based_exec_ctrl = _pin_based_exec_control;
vmcs_conf->cpu_based_exec_ctrl = _cpu_based_exec_control;
vmcs_conf->cpu_based_2nd_exec_ctrl = _cpu_based_2nd_exec_control;
+ vmcs_conf->cpu_based_2nd_exec_ctrl &= ~SECONDARY_EXEC_TSC_SCALING;
vmcs_conf->vmexit_ctrl = _vmexit_control;
vmcs_conf->vmentry_ctrl = _vmentry_control;
@@ -9202,9 +9206,11 @@ static void __init vmx_check_processor_compat(void *rtn)
if (setup_vmcs_config(&vmcs_conf) < 0)
*(int *)rtn = -EIO;
if (memcmp(&vmcs_config, &vmcs_conf, sizeof(struct vmcs_config)) != 0) {
- printk(KERN_ERR "kvm: CPU %d feature inconsistency!\n",
- smp_processor_id());
- *(int *)rtn = -EIO;
+ printk(KERN_ERR "kvm: CPU %d feature inconsistency%s!\n",
+ smp_processor_id(),
+ ignore_inconsistency ? " -- ignored" : "");
+ if (!ignore_inconsistency)
+ *(int *)rtn = -EIO;
}
}
--
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
