On 15.05.2009, at 13:09, Avi Kivity wrote:
Alexander Graf wrote:
When using nested SVM we usually want the guest to see the exact
CPUID values
we gave it and not some mangled ones.
That would triggered by -cpu host, not nesting.
Oh we have -cpu host already? If so, we don't need that hackery of
course :-)
@@ -1506,7 +1506,7 @@ void cpu_x86_cpuid(CPUX86State *env, uint32_t
index, uint32_t count,
*edx = env->cpuid_features;
/* "Hypervisor present" bit required for Microsoft SVVP */
- if (kvm_enabled())
+ if (kvm_enabled() && !kvm_nested)
*ecx |= (1 << 31);
break;
-cpu host,-hypervisor
hm - treating the hypervisor bit like any other cpuid bit sounds like
a good idea. I'm wondering though which way should be preferred. I
usually don't want to have the hypervisor bit set - but maybe I'm the
minority.
Alex
--
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
