----- Original Message -----
> From: "Radim Krčmář" <rkrcmar@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Paolo Bonzini" <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 5:45:54 PM
> Subject: Re: [PATCH kvm-unit-tests] vmx: fixes for MAXPHYADDR requirement
>
> 2018-01-25 11:36-0500, Paolo Bonzini:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Radim Krčmář" <rkrcmar@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > To: "Paolo Bonzini" <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 4:11:32 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH kvm-unit-tests] vmx: fixes for MAXPHYADDR requirement
> > >
> > > 2018-01-17 19:03+0100, Paolo Bonzini:
> > > > The EPT access tests require at least 41 bits of guest physical address
> > > > space. This is because the test data needs a separate PML4 entry in
> > > > the
> > > > EPT table. However, many consumer-grade processors have only 36 or
> > > > 39-bit MAXPHYADDR, and the tests fail there with a page fault due to
> > > > reserved bits set in the guest (GVA->GPA) page tables.
> > > >
> > > > Add a test on MAXPHYADDR and skip the tests if they cannot run on the
> > > > system under test, and only require 40 bits to lower the requirements.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > x86/vmx_tests.c | 6 +++++-
> > > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/x86/vmx_tests.c b/x86/vmx_tests.c
> > > > index e8c97f2..0c3b5a7 100644
> > > > --- a/x86/vmx_tests.c
> > > > +++ b/x86/vmx_tests.c
> > > > @@ -2609,6 +2609,10 @@ static void ept_access_test_setup(void)
> > > > if (setup_ept(false))
> > > > test_skip("EPT not supported");
> > > >
> > > > + /* We use data->gpa = 1 << 39 so that test data has a separate pml4
> > > > entry
> > > > */
> > > > + if (cpuid_maxphyaddr() < 40)
> > >
> > > This does not help at the moment -- QEMU reports 40 even on hosts that
> > > don't have as much. It is a QEMU bug, so applied still, thanks.
> >
> > True. However, vmx.flat is run with "-cpu host,+vmx", and that should
> > forward
> > the host MAXPHYADDR, shouldn't it?
>
> Would make sense for QEMU to do that, but it's not what happens.
> I get 40 on both 39 and 46 hosts.
>
> We can do "-cpu host,+vmx,host_phys_bits" at the cost of breaking unit
> tests on old QEMUs ...
No, let's fix QEMU.
Paolo
