On Thu, May 16 2024 at 07:39, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Thu, May 16, 2024, Weijiang Yang wrote:
>> We synced the issue internally, and got conclusion that KVM should honor host
>> IBT config. In this case IBT bit in boot_cpu_data should be honored. With
>> this policy, it can avoid CPUID confusion to guest side due to host ibt=off
>> config.
>
> What was the reasoning? CPUID confusion is a weak justification, e.g. it's not
> like the guest has visibility into the host kernel, and raw CPUID will still show
> IBT support in the host.
>
> On the other hand, I can definitely see folks wanting to expose IBT to guests
> when running non-complaint host kernels, especially when live migration is in
> play, i.e. when hiding IBT from the guest will actively cause problems.
I have to disagree here violently.
If the exposure of a CPUID bit to a guest requires host side support,
e.g. in xstate handling, then exposing it to a guest is simply not
possible.
Just because virtualization allows to do that does not mean that it's
correct in any way.
Thanks,
tglx
